Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This revision is directed against the order dated 13.7.2001 passed in M.J.C. No. 15/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur (for short the “District Forum”), whereby the objection of the applicant that the award passed by the Arbitrator appointed under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short the “Telegraph Act”), is not executable as without jurisdiction was dismissed.

2. It is not in dispute that on the Complaint Case No. 213 of 1993 filed by the applicant challenging the excessive bills dated 1.8.1992, 1.10.1992, 1.12.1992, 1.2.1993 and 1.4.1993 of Telephone No. 52318, the parties agreed that the dispute be referred for adjudication of the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. The parties participated in the arbitration proceedings under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act before the Arbitrator without any objection. The Arbitrator vide award dated 13.8.1998 passed the order and sent it to the District Forum. The District Forum on receipt of the award passed an order on 4.1.2000 making an award as a Rule of the District Forum. The applicant in spite of the order of the District Forum did not make the payment of Rs. 48,871/-, therefore, the Telecom Department filed an application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”), for execution of the order of the District Forum. In that the applicant objected that reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. The District Forum dismissed the objection and ordered the applicant to make the payment of Rs. 48, 871/- of Telephone No. 2318-52318.

3. Mr. Pankaj Khare, learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., II (2000) CPJ 6 (SC)=AIR 2000 SC 2008, submitted that the reference by the District Forum was without jurisdiction as the District Forum ought to have decided the consumer dispute. Further placing reliance on a decision of the National Commission in The Divisional Engineer & Anr. v. Harikishan Bhattad, II (1996) CPJ 11 (NC)=1996 NCJ 408, contended that where the subscriber merely complains about the exorbitant bills, there he complains only about faulty reading of meter, which only involves question as to whether the meter has been correctly and honestly read and the readings had been correctly and honestly noted down, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.

4. Mr. K.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supported the order and submitted that true the District Forum could not have referred the matter for adjudication before the Arbitrator. However, in the present case the reference was not at the instance of the District Forum, but it was with the consent of the parties the reference was made to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. In such circumstances, now it would be unjust and inequitable to set at naught the award and relegate the parties back in the original proceedings.

5. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the question whether the Arbitrator appointed under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, whose award becomes conclusive between the parties to the dispute and cannot be questioned in any Court as laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court observed in paras 2, 5, 7 and 8 thus :

“2. With the industrial revolution and development in the International Trade and Commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. The modern method of advertisement in media