S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether the arbitration of disputes envisaged by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act is a preliminary bar against seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by a subscriber of the Telex Service - is the significant threshold question in this case.

2. The salient facts are not in serious dispute and may be recapitulated with relative brevity. M/s. Jagdamba Rice Mills, Taraori (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainants') is a firm of considerable standing and repute, carrying on the business of a large scale exporter of rice at Taraori, which is a well-known centre therefor. The complainant-firm in order to avail of the fast communication by modern technology and to keep in touch with the foreign countries about the latest position of rates, demand, and dispatches of rice from time to time, got installed a Telex No. 241 in their premises at Taraori, after completing necessary formalities therefor, on the 31st October, 1985. At the very outset it may be mentioned at the main Telex Exchange is located at the District Headquarters at Karnal, and the aforesaid connection was provided as a long-distance one at Taraori, being at a distance of about 18 kilometers therefrom. It is the firm case of the complainants that despite some efforts made by the mechanics and technicians of the defendant-department of Telecommunications, Haryana Circle, the Telex Connection could not be brought into working order and had not given any service worth the name to the complainant-firm.

3. It has been averred in the complaint that the Telex connection failed to give efficient service from the very date of its installation, but initially the complainants did not lodge any complaint with the hope that the defects therein would get removed in due course and were in essence teething troubles thereof. However, when this did not happen, the complainants were convinced that there was patently a major defect in the Telex, and lodged a complaint with the Department vide Annexure P1 dated 10th September 1986. In response thereto, the technicians visited the Telex and changed the machine thereof apparently because of its defective nature, but failed to provide an attachment, called by way of abbreviation as ‘LU’ necessitating another complaint Annexure P2 dated the 10th November, 1986. Because of continued defective working, the technicians again corrected the machinery during the month of November, 1986 after repairs etc. and the Telex lines remained out of order for a considerable time. Apparently because the Telex was not working, no bills were forwarded to the complainants and as a matter of abundant caution, they wrote to the D.E.T., Karnal, vide Annexure P3 dated 19th November, 1986, intimating that they had not received any bills for the last six months or more, and these should be forwarded for payment well in time. The burden of the song in the complaint is that despite innumerable complaints made telephonically, verbally and also personally at the top levels, the functioning of the Telex failed to improve. As a last resort, the complainants addressed their representation to Shri Arjun Singh, the then Minister of Communications Government of India. New Delhi, vide Annexure P4 dated 28th November, 1986 to highlight the failure of the Telex and the consequent loss to the complainant-firm. It is further the case that ultimately the mechanics and technicians sent by the Department to repair the Telex threw up their hands and declared that there was some manufacturing defect in the equipment provided and they were helpless and showed their inability to repair and rectify the same. Meanwhile, another communication (Annexure P5) was addressed as a reminder to the Department, asking them to send their bill, if any, expeditiously.

4. The complainants then go on to allege that on finding that the Telex could not be made operational by the Department at Taraori, perhaps because of the long distance from the Excha