The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a consumer of BSNL being telephone No.2864416 since 1999. His aforesaid telephone is lying dead for last one year. While the complainant lodged several complaint to Chabua Telephone Exchange, the OP admitted that disconnection was occurred due to digging of earth near M.E.S. Tiniali, Chabua and assured the complainant that the telephone line will be repaired as early as possible. Further, the bill paid by the complainant will be refunded soon. The complainant in the hope of getting line and refund of money waited for one year. But the telephone line remain dead due to the negligence of non-repairing the line. The complainant lodged a written complaint to the SDO, Telephone, BSNL, Dibrugarh on 25.09.12. But no action was taken against the said complaint. Later on, on 27.11.12 the complainant personally went to Chabua Telephone Exchange and met some of the staff of the office but they expressed their inability to restore the telephone. The complainant was regular bill payer and paid all the bills for last one year. Even then the line remain unrestored due to the sheer negligence on the part of the OP which is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, complainant filed this case with prayer to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental and physical agony, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the petition and Rs.1893/- for the bill paid by the complainant for last one year with interest.
On the basis of above complaint petition this case was registered and issued notices to the OPs to which they contested the case and submitted their written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OP mainly contested on the point of jurisdiction U/s. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court Cases stating that when there is a special remedy provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. So, the OPs prayed to dismiss the case filed by the complainant against them.
In this case the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited as many as 9 (nine) documents in support of his claim. On the other hand, OPs did not examine any witnesses to rebut the case of the complainant. It is to be noted in this case that OP on 22.02.13 filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the case U/s. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which barred the remedy of the complainant’s petition.
DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :
The OP in their argument raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the processing of this case. in this connection the OP took very first plea that the District Consumer Forum lack jurisdiction to try this case as the dispute mentioned in this case is covered U/s.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Section 7B reads as under-
- 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 for whose benefit the line, appliances 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 specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.
Learned counsel for the OP in this connection referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & ors. where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where there is a special remedy provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by application barred.
Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the OP it would be appropriate to note decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan and ors. reported in 2009 CTJ 1062 (SC) where it has been held that in view of the availability of special remedy U/s. 7-B of the Telegraph Act i remedy under C.P. Act, 1986 is barred. Hon’ble National Commission in RP 1703 of 2010 decided on 21.5.2010 that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate court. Consequently consumer Forum do not have jurisdiction to entertain any complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above two decisions the preliminary objection of lack of the jurisdiction is well founded hence the Forum did not enter into the merit of the case. The complaint petition is dismissed without cost.
It is further open to the complainant to avail such remedies as is available in law.
