PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Counsel for the parties present. -2- The impugned order passed by the State Commission dated 14.12.2011 runs as follows: “ Present: Mr. T.R. Jain, Advocate for the appellant Heard. This complaint was dismissed in limini by the District Forum, Shimla, vide order dated 18.10.2011 whereby reliance of judgment in case General Manager Telecommunication Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. apex court, 2009 CTJ 1062 (SC) (CP). Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act lays down specific mechanism to settle the dispute of this kind by way of arbitration. We have gone through the judgement of Fora below, there appears to be no infirmity in the order of Fora below as it is based upon the judgment of apex court given in case supra. Since jurisdiction of the Fora below under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is clearly barred as per aforesaid judgment of the apex court as the dispute in the present case relates to non-functioning of land line telephone. Hence this appeal is dismissed in limini. Copy be supplied to appellant free of cost and copy be also sent to the fora below”. 2. Counsel for the respondent supports this order. He has also brought to our notice the similar view was taken by this Commission in Zia Uddin Alvi Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Tele Services) in Revision Petition No. 398 of 2011. The Bench was headed by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President and they followed the authority reported in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (2009) -3- 8 SCC 481 (supra). He also submits that the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President in another Revision Petition titled as Prakash Verma Vs. IDEA Cellular Ltd. & Anr. and the Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010 decided on 21.05.2010 took the same view. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its two-Judges Bench namely Hon’ble
Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar, dismissed the SLP. 4. It appears that their attention was not invited towards the three-Judges Bench, Supreme Court authority reported in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 2000 CTJ 321 (SC) (CP). This case was decided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattnaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava. They were pleased to hold: “Even, if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection -4- Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Now let us see what procedure has been adopted by the Commission”. 5. However, in this case, as per the compromise, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator but in the instant case, there is no such compromise. We are bound to follow the three-Judges Bench Supreme Court authority. Consequently, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission, remand the case for fresh retrial on merits and parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.11.2013. | 
