Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM —Petitioner
versus
CONSUMER D.R. FORUM—Respondent
O.P. No. 11952 of 1997—Decided on 5.9.1997
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 3 - SECTION 7B OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT - CONSUMER DISPUTE - ADDITIONAL REMEDY - OUSTER OF JURISDICTION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT IS A SPECIAL LAW - CONSUMER DISPUTE CAN BE ADJUDICATED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, General Manager, Telecom District, Trivandrum, and two others under him, challenged an order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (1st respondent) holding that a consumer dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent was maintainable before the Forum. The petitioners contended that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) did not apply.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provided an additional remedy for the redressal of consumer grievances, and that it was not in derogation of any other law. The court found that the dispute between the parties was a consumer dispute as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, and that the petitioners were rendering a service to the 2nd respondent by providing telephone facilities. The court further held that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act did not provide an exclusive remedy for the resolution of disputes between consumers and the petitioners, and that the 2nd respondent was entitled to seek redressal of his grievance before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides an additional remedy for the redressal of consumer grievances, or whether it ousts the jurisdiction of other tribunals and authorities to resolve such disputes? 2. Whether the dispute between the parties was a consumer dispute as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act? 3. Whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, provides an exclusive remedy for the resolution of disputes between consumers and the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides an additional remedy for the redressal of consumer grievances, and that it is not in derogation of any other law. The court relied on Section 3 of the Act, which states that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 2. The court found that the dispute between the parties was a consumer dispute as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The court noted that the petitioners were rendering a service to the 2nd respondent by providing telephone facilities, and that the 2nd respondent had raised a dispute with regard to the facilities and services rendered by the petitioners. 3. The court held that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, does not provide an exclusive remedy for the resolution of disputes between consumers and the petitioners. The court noted that Section 7B only applies to disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances, or apparatus, and that the dispute between the parties related to the services rendered by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the consumer dispute between the parties.
K.A. Abdul Gafoor J.—The General Manager, Telecom District, Trivandrum and two others under him are the petitioners in this case. They challenge Ext. P7 order and seek a direction restraining the 1st respondent from continuing the proceedings in O.P. No. 399/1996 on the basis of Ext. P 5 complaint. Ext. P7 is the order passed by the 1st respondent upon Ext. P5 regarding its maintainability, which was considered as a preliminary point by the 1st respondent, at the instance of the petitioners.
2. Admittedly by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is a subscriber under them. He has filed Ext. P5 complaint before the 1st respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trivandrum. Ext. P6 objection was filed challenging the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent itself to entertain Ext. P5, and that issue was considered in Ext. P7 and was found against the petitioners. It is in the above circumstances theyhave approached this Court.
3. Telephone is a service rendered by the petitioners to the subscribers. There was disconnection of that facility granted to the 2nd respondent consequent on alleged non-payment of the bills. On that basis, the 2nd respondent raised a consumer dispute with the 1st respondent. Consumer dispute is defined in Section 2(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It reads as follows:
"Consumer dispute' means where a person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint".
So, there is a consumer dispute between the parties. 'Consumer' is a person who hires or buys any service for consideration. 'Service' means, any service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with 'purveying' of news or other information. The petitioners cannot deny that they are rendering a service in the matter of providing telephones to respective subscribers. Therefore, a dispute raised by the subscriber against the petitioners is certainly maintaiable before the Consumer Redressal Forum.
4. Section 3 of the said Act reads as follows:
"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".
That specifically provides that the machinery under the Act is additional machinery for redressal of the grievances that may be available in addition to those available under the statutes or under general provisions of law. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act provides for a separate machinery of arbitration in case of disputes between consumer and the department. Therefore, there is no reason for consumers approaching the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The remedy under Section 7B shall not be available in respect of every dispute. The remedy provided under the Act is on the basis of Section 3 thereof. It is additional machinery and it is more effective and speedy remedy available to the consumers. The dispute that can be sought redressal of by resorting to the machinery under the Act is only the consumer disputes whereas the dispute that may be settled under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act can over and above the consumer disputes shall include other disputes. Therefore, it cannot be stated that by reason of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act there is an ouster of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as contended by the Counsel for the petitioners. There is no ouster at all. Section 3 makes it clear that it is an addition and not an ouster.
5. To substantiate his contentions that there is an ouster. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision reported in Chairman, T.T. Corpration v. Consumer Protection Council, AIR 1995 SC 1384. That was a case where claim for compensation in respect of fatal accident out of a motor vehicle was made before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was held by the Supreme Court in that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
