M.krishnan Vs General Telecom District Consumer court Order

Here:

  Supreme Court of India

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7687 of 2004

Judge(s): MARKANDEY KATJU,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

Date of Judgment: 01 September, 2009

GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM

Versus

M. KRISHNAN & ANR.

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

No one appears for the respondents although they had been served.

This appeal is directed against the Full Bench judgment and order dated 14.02.2003 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.

The dispute in this case was regarding non-payment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No. 1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant herein to re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No. 1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

Aggrieved against the order of the Consumer Forum, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench felt that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench and hence the matter was placed before the Full Bench. By the impugned order the Full Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, the appellant is before us by way of present appeal by special leave.

In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in 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:-

"S. 7B 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-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

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.

It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.

In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 26.11s.2001.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

@Ranjana

" I need it for my case against Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Supreme Court Judgement against the present case has been applied in all the cases before District Consumer Forum."

Can you give your case details ?

well, this judgment has not been accepted by certain Consumer Commissions and proper interpretation is being given keeping in view the provisions of TRAI Act 1997.

we have gone against one State Commission order, from Haryana, before NCDRC and most likely a proper opinion will be available on the matter in the month of August.

thanks for reply..I need the order passed by District forum  dated 26.11.2001. to know the facts of the above case

chk the link.
https://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/1251101123132155344UshaSonivsVodafoneEssar.htm

Comapny raised the bill charging of games dowload. which was not used by us. bill clearly shows the mistake.

even i an filing appeal in NCDRC as mine case is dismissed by State Commision Punjab.

Hey Do u the Facts of M.Krishna.. I mean what was wrong with M.krishnan bill, which is unpaid.. etc 

its strange to know that Punjab State Commission has dismissed your case in view of that judgment.

I have been appearing before Punjab Commission for quite a long time now, so far as my knowledge is concerned the Punjab State Commission (first bench) is not accepting the view point of SC judgment in case of private cellular operators.

can you please upload the copy of the orders passed by the Punjab state Commission?

otherwise also dont be too much concerned about the facts of Krishnan's case...the main point of consideration in your case is the applicability of the law and the jurisdiction of the consumer courts.

apprise us about facts of your case and the orders passed.

State Commission punjab has refer recent RP no.1703 by Ncdrc in the case of parkash Verma vs Idea celluar of 2010. mine order by passed by district ludhiana is  as below:

chk the link.
https://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/1251101123132155344UshaSonivsVodafoneEssar.htm

Comapny raised the bill charging of games dowload. which was not used by us. bill clearly shows the mistake.

when i appraoched the concerned they told that waiver shall be posted i next month bill. and ask us to pay the bill first. but the waiver was not posted in next bills.. meanwhile i continouly appraching their offcials.. i had made payment of Rs.2450. if waiver could posted as promised , i might had advance payment in tune of above 1800. company did not gave any waiver. and disconnected my all three connections on a/c of non payment. while dispute belongs to only one number.. more over when my case was pending befor district co reissue all my numbers to other.  
 

 i just want to know which no. is matter of dispute in case of M.Krishnan..as per my research The celluar services is launched by bsnl in kerala on 23/10/2002. and the order passed by district kozhikode dated 26.11.2001. if this is the facts then M.krishnan no. is certainly a landline no. which is well defined in Telegraph act 1885. but the celluar services is added in later enactment in TRAI 1997.  Hence The SC judgemnt does not apply in case of cellular Services. please give ur comments

I have also raised the same provision that is Section 7-B before the District Forum for my client BSNL in 2008, but the District Forum simply ignored my plea of Jurisdictions and when I appeal before the State Forum the state forum kept my appeal in coldstorage for nearly two years, but thanks to National Commission which transferred my case to another State.

@ N.K ASSUMI whether u put the fact abt landline or Mobile?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WHY STATUS OF SC CASE IS SHOWING PENDING IN ONLINE PORTAL.?