Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 36 (UTT)

DOOR SANCHAR VIBHAG v. K. P. S. SIBBAL

2013-02-01

B.C.KANDPAL, C.C.PANT

body2013
ORDER Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): This is service provider’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in Consumer Complaint 204/1997. Vide impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the B.S.N.L. not to recover the telephone bills of Rs. 73,767/- and to immediately provide him O.Y.T. telephone connection and also to pay Rs. 4,000 towards damages. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri K.P.S. Sibbal had taken a telephone connection No. 83500 from the service provider, which was installed at his residence. On 24-04-1991 the complainant went abroad and till July, 1995 he remained outside from the country. Thereafter, he came to Rudrapur and felt the need of the telephone. On 01.11.1996 the complainant applied with the service provider for telephone connection and then he came to know that there are telephone dues against him. The complainant wrote several letters to the service provider, but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the service provider, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 29.03.2001 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the service provider has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties. The dispute relates with regard to the non-payment of the telephone bill. The District Forum has directed the Telecom Department not to recover the arrear of the telephone bill and to pay damages of Rs. 4,000 as well as to reconnect the telephone connection, vide impugned order and judgment dated 29.03.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appeal is being preferred by the Telecom Department before the State Commission, Lucknow. After creation of the new state, the appeal has been transferred to the State Commission, Uttarakhand. 4,000 as well as to reconnect the telephone connection, vide impugned order and judgment dated 29.03.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appeal is being preferred by the Telecom Department before the State Commission, Lucknow. After creation of the new state, the appeal has been transferred to the State Commission, Uttarakhand. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, when there is a special remedy provided under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under: “Section 7-B. Arbitration of Disputes- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.” 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. 7. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims pertaining to the non payment of the telephone bills. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum. 8. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum. 8. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. The dispute raised by the complainant in the case is referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the service provider and an award to the dispute shall be delivered by the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.