The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act to entertain disputes between a telephone subscriber and the Telephone Authorities, despite the existence of other laws.

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The relevant facts in the present complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are that the Telephone No. 3321210 was installed at the business premises of the complainant and the complainant received three bills, dated 28.11.1988 for the period 22.12.1987 to 15.8.1988 for Rs. 2,19,115/-, bill dated 26.4.1989 for the period 16.8.1988 to 15.10.1988 amounting to Rs. 85,806/-, and bill dated 22.12.1989 for Rs. 2,87,800/- for the period 16.10.1988 to 15.6.1989, inclusive of the rental for the period 1.2.1989 to 31.3.1989. The complainant represented to the opposite party, vide letters dated 9.3.1989 and 12.5.1989 against the above said excessive bills, on the ground that in the previous bills the normal average calls per month were reflected as 13,000 to 14,000 calls per month, whereas according to the bills in question the average monthly calls averaged to about 26,000 to 27,000 calls per month, and as such, the complainant requested the concerned official of the opposite party to investigate the matter and paid Rs. 50,000/-provisionally towards each of the above noted bills pending investigation. The opposite party vide letter dated 25.5.1989 informed the complainant that no rebate could be granted in respect of the bills mentioned above as the matter had been investigated and no abnormality had been found in the reading pattern and as such, the bills sent were correct and in accordance with the meter reading. The complainant, therefore, wrote to the Divisional Engineer Grievances (C) vide letter dated 29.5.1990 complaining against the excessive bills received by it and also pointing out that the bills had not been issued in time and the huge amount accumulated could not be paid by it in lump-sum and as such, requested the matter to be referred to the Telephone Adalat. In response to the said representation of the complainant, the Chief Accounts Officer T.R. (Central) vide letter dated 25.6.1990 admitted the fact that due to some punching mistake with the computer, the bills had been delayed and as such, the complainant could make the payment of the bills in five monthly instalments. It was also intimated that no rebate could be given to the complainant so far as the amount of the bills was concerned and that in case the due payment was not received, the other telephone connections of the Company would also be disconnected. As such, the complainant vide letter dated 3.7.1990 brought the matter before the Chief Accounts Officer (TR) (Central) requesting it to have the matter put up before the Telephone Adalat and in the meanwhile requested not to disconnect the telephone as an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- had already been paid provisionally towards pending bills and further cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was enclosed with the above said letter. Thereafter, the complainant also followed up the matter and in all made a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in instalments against the total amount of Rs. 5,92,721/- being the total amount of the bills dated 28.11.1988, 26.4.1989 and 22.12.1989. However, the telephone of the complainant was disconnected on account of non-payment and as such, the complainant filed a complaint before this Commission praying for the waiver of the balance amount payable by it towards the total amount of the above mentioned bills and for the restoration of the telephone connection with immediate effect.

2. The opposite party in its reply/written version filed before this Commission raised the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant, was not maintainable under the Act in view of the provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for arbitration and as such, debars the jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum to entertain the disputes between a subscriber and the Telephone Authorities. On merits it was stated by the opposite party that the telephone connection bearing No. 321210 was opened on