(Per: D.K. Tyagi, Member):

This is an appeal filed by Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust-appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.01.1994 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 465 of 1993, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed consumer complaint and directed the opposite party-Telephone Department to restore the complainant’s telephone within 15 days from the date of order, failing which action shall be taken under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the telephone No. 26933 with S.T.D. facility was installed on 30.07.1991 after that the complainant had deposited advance rent for three years and security amounting to Rs. 48,213/-.  Further a bank guarantee of Rs. 89,020/- was also furnished.  Local and S.T.D. calls made through the said telephone are being recorded in a register maintained for the purpose. Vide letter dated 27.01.1993 it was stated on behalf of the Department that the telephone had been disconnected on 29.12.1992.  By the letter dated 01.03.1993, the Accounts Officer (TR) of the office of Telecom District Engineer, Dehradun the complainant was required to pay arrears amounting to Rs. 1,07,575/- by 11.03.1993 and it was intimated that in case of default, the telephone would be disconnected.  Thus, on the basis of the letter dated 01.03.1993, the complainant averred that by that date the telephone had not been disconnected.  According to the complainant, it had not received the bill dated 06.01.1992 for Rs. 52,447/- and the bill dated 01.11.1992 for Rs. 50,310/-.  According to the complainant, from very beginning the telephone had not been working and, therefore, the demand of Rs. 48,213/- made in the bill dated 06.01.1992 was not legal and for non-payment of this bill, the telephone could not have been disconnected.  During the period from 15.08.1992 to 21.08.1992, the telephone was not in working order and, therefore, in the revised bill dated 01.11.1992, demand for the chargeable calls shown therein had been wrongly made.  Because of the visit of the Governor on 04.04.1993, the telephone was restored on 23.03.1993, but subsequently the telephone again became inoperative.  According to the complainant, the telephone remained out of order for seven months, for which rebate was admissible.

3.       The opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is denied that the complainant’s telephone was not working from the very beginning. It was asserted that the telephone was disconnected on 29.12.1992 due to non-payment of the bills and was restored on 09.03.1993 on the assurance given on behalf of the complainant that the bills would be paid.  As the bills remained unpaid despite the assurance, the telephone was again disconnected on 15.05.1993.  The telephone functioned satisfactory and faults were rectified from time to time.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 10.01.1994 and rest of the consumer complaint was dismissed in the above manner.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.       Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the dispute in the matter relates to telephone billing and, as such, the dispute is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and the dispute is barred by the provisions of Section 7B of the India Telegraph Act, 1885.

7.       In the present case also, the complainant-appellant has alleged that from very beginning the telephone had not been working and, therefore, the demand of Rs. 48,213/- made in the bill dated 06.01.1992 was not legal and for non-payment of this bill, the telephone could not have been disconnected.  The complainant has also alleged that during the period from 15.08.1992 to 21.08.1992, the telephone was not in working order and, therefore, in the revised bill dated 01.11.1992, the demand for the chargeable calls shown therein had been wrongly made

8.       Considering the nature of the dispute raised by the complainant, the same need to be legally resolved by arbitration, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision given in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another; III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the legal principle that the special law overrides the general law, hence in the face of the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the dispute pertaining to telephone bill cannot be entertained and decided by a Fora constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The said decision has also been followed in decision of this Commission dated 20.11.2009 rendered in First Appeal No. 246 of 2006 & 247 of 2006, decision dated 03.12.2009 in First Appeal No. 47 of 2008 and decision dated 29.05.2014 in First Appeal No. 132 of 2011.

9.       In view of above, appeal is disposed of.  Order impugned dated 10.01.1994 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 465 of 1993 is dismissed.  The dispute raised by the complainant in the case is referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the service provider and an award to the dispute shall be delivered by the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order.  No order as to costs.

(SMT. VEENA SHARMA)                                                               (D.K. TYAGI)