L. Manoharan, President - The opposite parties in OP No. 137/97 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki are the appellants.

2. The allegation of the complainant who was the Secretary of Kerala School Teachers Association(K.S.T.A.) was that Exbt. Al bill for telephone No. 22854 is excessive and as per Exbt. A2 detailed call report it is noted there were several. ISD calls which they never made and it was not even known that ISD facility was available for the said telephone bill Exbt. Al was received. He alleged that the telephone in question is kept in the Secretary's room, the same is in his custody and that there was no occasion even for making ISD calls. It was also maintained that the other official who used to have control of the telephone was PW2, the treasurer, both had never made such number of calls. They wanted redressal as the bill contains excess calls.

3. In the version by the opposite parties they sought to maintain that the calls in question are genuine calls. They denied the allegation that the bill in question contained excess calls. They maintained, there is no deficiency of service neither is any negligence on their part, therefore they wanted dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant gave evidence as PW l, examined PWs 2 to 4 and produced Exbts. Al to A9. No evidence was tendered by the opposite parties.

5. On a consideration of the said material the District Forum made a direction to exclude ISD calls from Exbt Al bill, and pay compensation of Rs. 1,500/- alongwith costs Rs.750/- The said direction is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain, that in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the matter ought to have been referred for arbitration and the District Forum could not have entertained the complaint that the evidence on record would not show that there was either negligence or deficiency of service since there is nothing to show that the disputed calls did not emanate from the telephone in question, the District Forum went wrong in making direction to exclude ISD calls. In support of the argument that the matter had to be referred for arbitration learned counsel made reliance on the decision in Telecom District Manager, Goa and others v. V.S. Dempo and Co. and others l. A reading of the decision would show, what was considered was, as to the relevance and validity of Administrative instructions issued by the Union of India to the effect that the dispute can be referred only when there is a reference by the Court. The Supreme Court held, such direction is inconsistent with the provision in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The said decision does not hold that the jurisdiction of the Fora created under the Consumer Protection Act is ousted by Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Learned Counsel then relied on the decision in M/s. Raag Rang and Another v. General Manager, Delhi Telephones and others 2; it held, on as a question as to whether payment has been made or not being a question of fact, the matter could not be decided under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. This decision also does not state that the jurisdiction of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act is ousted by Section 7B or Section 11(A) of the Telegraph Act; the decision is distinguishable on facts also. The learned Counsel then referred us to the decision in Sri. M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and Others3, there the question that came up for consideration was whether an Arbitrator under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act is bound to give reasons for his conclusion. The Supreme Court held that the Arbitrator is bound to give reasons for his conclusions. This also cannot have any application. On the other hand, the decision of the National Commission in Divisional Engineer, Telecom Moradabad v. Virender Kumar4 considers the question as to the jurisdiction of the Fora in the Context of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegrap