IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
IA.NO.106/15 in CC.NO.281/14
Dated this, the 30 day of October 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Kunhi Mahin.P.M, S/o Late Muhammed,
R/at We Two Palace, Panalam,
Po,Cheroor, Kasaragod. Dt. :Complainant
(in person)
M/s Idea Cellular Limited, 501/502,
Windsor, CST Road, Klaina, Santhacruz(E)
Mumbai-400098 rep by its authorized officer : Applicant /Opposite party
(Adv.K.Dinesh Kumar)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed against opposite party for damages by alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
Opposite party filed version challenging the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in entertaining the complaint. The opposite party filed IA 106/15 for hearing the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the complaint before the Forum on the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom vs M.Krishnan and another dtd.1/9/2009. In the above decision the Hon’ble Apex court had observed that “ It is a settled law that general law must yield to special law” and further held that there was a remedy prescribed under Sec.7B of the Telegraph Act for resolution of all disputes regarding telephone through arbitration. Since there was a specific statutory remedy prescribed, it would oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Foums”.
Heard both sides. Counsel appearing for opposite party vehemently argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court will prevail.
Upon hearing the counsels appearing for both sides and on perusal of the judgments of the Apex courts we are of the view that the Judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us and the IA 106/15 is allowed. Since the IA is allowed this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant can approach before the Telecom Arbitrator to redressal of his complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT