Mr. K.P. Sinha, Member—In this complaint petition the Akhil Bhartiye Grahak Panchayat, Jehanabad has complained against the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Bihar that even after the inauguration of the Jehanabad Electronic Exchange on 16.8.90 and the announcement from the Telephone Department that the pulse rate for telephonic calls made on STD from Jehanabad to Patna and Jehanabad to Gaya was 36/48/48 seconds, the STD calls were being charged at the rate of pulse rate of 12/24/48 for Patna-Jehanabad & Jehanabad-Gaya. The radial distance from Jehanabad to Patna and Jehanabad to Gaya is between 20 to 50 kms. and the STD Tarrif charge should be therefore 36-48-48 but the Jehanabad-Patna rate was being over charged at the pulse rate of 12 seconds for full-time STD calls. In support of the complaint the complainant filed two receipts which showed pulse rate of 12 seconds. The complainant has also drawn attention to the inquiry which got conducted by the District Forum, Jehanabad on an allegation about the inaccuracy of the pulse rate ctiarged by the Jehanabad Exchange. The inquiry was made by a Committee consisting of the N.D-C. Jehanabad Collectorate, a Journalist, the complainant and the Opposite Party was also represented in the Committee by the local Assistant Engineer. The Chairman of the Committee was the Judgein-charge, Jehanabad Civil Court. In the report of this Committee it has been mentioned that the Chairman made test calls to Patna and Gaya in presence of all the members of the Committee and the pulse rate of Jehanabad-Patna calls was found to be 12 seconds for Jehanabad-Patna and Jehanabad-Gaya pulse rate was 9.6 seconds. On receipt of the report the Jehanabad District Forum passed order directing for correction of the pulse rate. The complainant on the basis of this report has alleged unfair trade practice on behalf of the Telephone Department.

2. The Opposite Parties have denied the charge and have averred that the pulse rate for Jehanabad-Patna and Jehanabad-Gaya are the same as prescibed by the rules and have also averred that the inquiry made by the Enquiry Committee set up by the District Forum on 20.3.91 may be wrong due to monitoring defects, starting and closing time of the Stop Watch may not be exactly tallying with the starting and closing time of the calls made. They have said that various test calls were made on 18.4.91, 29.7.91 and 14.11.91 and the pulse rate was found to be correct and therefore there was no question of any over charging and or any refund on that account.

The Opposite Party also raised the question of maintainability of the complaint on two grounds viz. (i) the existence of Section 7(b) of the Telegraphs Act and (ii) that the complainant was not a registered voluntary organisation.

3. Witnesses have been examined by the complainant and the Opposite Party in support of their contentions and the arguments of the complainant and of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties have been heard. They have also submitted written arguments.

4. In the first place we would like to observe that there is no bar for invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) simply because of existence of similar provisions in some other Acts. There has been various decisions of the National Commission that a Forum constituted under the Act can hear the matters brought before it even though there may be provision under others Acts and the complainant could have gone under those provisions for relief. It is totally the choice of the complainant to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act Secondly, the complainant is a branch of All India body viz. The Akhil Bhartiye Grahak Panchayat duly recognised for taking up the matters on behalf of the consumers. Hence the argument of the Opposite Party before us regarding non-maintainability of the complaint on these two counts can be summarily rejected.

5. The main point therefore for consideration is as to whether the