DIRECTOR, TELECOM DEPARTMENT, SARDARPURA-/ vs MADAN MOHAN

BY majority judgment dated 3.10.91 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 491/89 the opposite party appellant was directed to move the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator under Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for adjudication of the dispute in respect of the bills of telephone No. 20373 dated 1.7.89 for Rs. 1,332/- and dated 1.9.89 for Rs. 1,479/- and not to recover the said amounts and also not to disconnect the aforesaid telephone until the dispute is adjudicated by the arbitrator. The President of the District Forum, however, ordered for the dismissal of the complaint. Against the majority judgment the opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal. It is not necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts leading to this appeal in view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at. Suffice it to state that the complainant-respondent filed the complaint dated 15.9.89 before the District Forum, Jodhpur praying that his telephone No. 20373 may not be disconnected until decision and for financial loss and mental agony and harassment a sum of Rs. 2,000/- may be awarded as compensation. The complainant disputed the correctness of the two bills dated 1.7.89 and 1.9.89 for Rs. 1,332/- and Rs. 1,479/- respeclively. The opposite party has questioned the correctness of the order by filing this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). It was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum completely went wrong when it gave direction to the opposite party-appellant to approach the Centra1 Government for the appointment of an arbitrator under Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (the Act of 1885) for adjudication of the dispute. Sec. 7-B of the Act of 1885 is as follows:- "7-B. Arbitration of disputes.-(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (2) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

MR. U.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the averments made in the complaint questioning the correctness of the two bills and the reliefs that the complainant has sought, Sec. 7-B of the Act, 1885 is not applicable in terms. This argument need not be examined in detail for the simple reason that it is settled by various decisions of the National Commission that the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute which might be covered even under Sec. 7-B of the Act of 1885. The National Commission in I (1991) CPJ 203 (NC) held that the existence of the provisions for arbitration under Sec. 7-B of the Act of 1885 which provides for arbitration is no bar for invoking the provisions of the Act. This view was reiterated in I (1991) CPJ 236 (NC) wherein the National Commission observed that the National Commission has more than once held that the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction to entertain and decide dispute under Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Two members of the District Forum who passed the order giving these directions were not right in directing that the opposite party-appellant to request the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator under Sec. 7-B of the Act of 1885 for adjudication of the dispute in respect of the bills of telephone No. 20373 dated 1.7.89 for Rs. 1.332/- and dated 1.9.89 for Rs. 1,479/-. The direction in question is set aside. The case will have to be sent back to the District Forum, Jodhpur to decide the complaint afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Until the complaint is finally decided on merits neither the telephone of the complainant will be disconnected nor payment of the amount of the two bills referred to above will be insisted.

There sult is that the appeal is allowed and the order dated 3.10.91 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 491/89 is set aside and the case is sent back to it with a direction to take it on its file and decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

THE appeal is allowed and the order dated 3.10.91 is set aside. Case remanded. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.