29.02.16

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 225 of 2012, whereby the preliminary objections filed by the revisionist – opposite party No. 1, were rejected.  The preliminary objections were filed on the ground that as per Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint since the matter is to be decided by arbitrator.

Considering Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the District Forum has rejected the preliminary objections.

We have considered the issue involved in the present revision petition.  This Commission in its order dated 30.11.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 119 of 2011; T.D.M., Door Sanchar Vs. Sh. Inder Raj Sahni, while placing reliance upon the decision of Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shillong given in the case of GMTD, BSNL, Shillong Vs. Kum. D. Phawa, Mangpoh; II (2014) CPJ 38 (Megha.), wherein the State Commission, Shillong has considered several judgments on the point that the consumer complaint with regard to excess telephone billing is maintainable before the Consumer Forum or not and whether or not the consumer complaint is barred under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, has held that the consumer complaint with regard to excess telephone billing is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  Therefore, we are of the view that the order impugned passed by the District Forum does not want any interference and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.  No order as to costs.