2012 Supreme(Del) 339
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
J.K. Mittal
Versus
Union Of India & Others
W.P.(C) 8285 of 2010 & C.M. No. 21319 of 2010
Decided On : 06-02-2012
For the Petitioner:In person with Arun Gulati, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 -Sachin Datta, CGSC. R2, Ravi Sikri, Ayushya Kumar, Advocates.
The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and is not in derogation of any other law. Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act does not apply to disputes with a non-telegraph authority.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 7B - Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act - Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act - Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 - Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRS and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 305 - Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy - Section 7B does not apply to non-telegraph authority - Consumer claim maintainable
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a consumer case against the respondent no.2, Bharti Airtel Limited and one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, Territory Sales Manager, Bharti Airtel Services Limited before the District Forum, raising grievances with regard to provision of services by them. The District Forum dismissed the petitioner’s complaint on the ground that the Forum does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The State Commission also dismissed the petitioner's appeal by placing reliance on Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the consumer claim of the petitioner is maintainable before the District Forum as the respondent no.2 is not a telegraph authority within the meaning of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the bar under Section 7B does not apply. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the District Forum to entertain and consider the petitioner's claim on its merits.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, holding that the Act provides an additional remedy and is not in derogation of any other law. It also emphasized that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act does not apply to disputes with a non-telegraph authority. The court relied on precedents such as Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi and Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner’s consumer claim was held to be maintainable before the District Forum. The District Forum was directed to entertain and consider the said claim on its merits.
Vipin sanghi, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to assail the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the State Commission constituted under Section 9(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Case No.FA-10/313, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum and held that the complaint preferred by the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. The petitioner filed a consumer case against the respondent no.2, Bharti Airtel Limited and one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, Territory Sales Manager, Bharti Airtel Services Limited before the District Forum, raising grievances with regard to provision of services by them. According to the petitioner, on 05.08.2009, the petitioner had purchased a broad band plan called Home 649, whereunder respondent no.2 had agreed to provide usage of broad band connection with a landline connection with free calls worth Rs.100/-and two email IDs on the said internet connection with configuration of the outlook express software.
3. Since disputes arose in regard to the provision of the said services, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum). On 15.03.2010, the District Forum dismissed the petitioner’s complaint on the ground that the Forum does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which has also dismissed the petitioners appeal by placing reliance on Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.
4. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. He, therefore, submits that even if it were to be assumed that the remedy under Section 7B by way of a statutory arbitration were available to the petitioner, the same would not bar the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, as the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRS and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 305, which in turn places reliance on Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385, wherein it had been held:
“14. …. …. …..
“It is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri Suri, that the words "in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force" would be given proper meaning and effect and if the complaint is not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on construction and conspectus of the provisions of the Act we think that the contention is not well founded. Parliament is aware of the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Contract Act, 1872 and the consequential remedy available under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., to avail of right of civil action in a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Act provides the additional remedy."
Further, dealing with the jurisdiction of the forums under the 1986 Act in paragraph 16 this Court has stated, thus: -
"16. It would, therefore, be clear that the legislature intended to provide a remedy in addition to the consentient arbitration which could be enforced under the Arbitration Act or the civil action in a suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. T