General Manager Calcutta Telephones vs Argha Mitra

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 11.12.95 passed by the West Bengal State Commission at Calcutta setting aside an Award dated 11.7.94 by Shri S.K. Bhaduri, Deputy General Manager, Calcutta Telephones given under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in pursuance of the orders and directions given by the District Forum, Calcutta in its order dated 1.12.93 passed in CDF Case No. 2665/93 raising the dispute in relation to two bills for the Cycles 7 and 9 of 1993 in respect of telephone No. 350 - 2081.

THE complainant in his complaint had alleged that he received two inflated bills for the Cycles 7and 9 of 1993 in respect of telephone No. 350 -2081 and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Calcutta Telephones. The case was heard by the District Forum on 1.12.93 and the rivals contentions were noticed. The District Forum in its order dated 1.12.93 directed "that the aforesaid impugned bills are sent to arbitration for adjudication u/Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 and the proceedings shall be initiated within one month and the same will be concluded within two months." In accordance with the directions of the District Forum, Calcutta and in implementation of the Order dated 1.12.93 the Competent Authority acting for and on behalf of the President of India appointed Shri S.K. Bhaduri as an Arbitrator to determine the dispute between the complainant and the Telephone Department with regard to the telephone bills for Cycles 7 of 93 and 9 of 93 against Telephone No. 350 -2081 held by Shri Argha Mitra, the complainant. The Arbitrator look upon the burden of the reference and issued notices to the parties but the complainant did not attend despite service. The Arbitrator considered the matter and determined that the bills for Cycles 7/93 and 9/93 were correctly prepared and issued in accordance with rules and procedures on the subject and made his award accordingly.

THE complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, West Bengal questioning the Award passed on 11.7.94 by Shri S.K. Bhaduri. The complainant in his appeal alleged that the ex -parte Award passed by the Arbitrator is prejudiced, unlawful, biased and partial as the Arbitrator was biased and partial in adjudicating the dispute between the complainant and the Telephone Authority. It was claimed that the complainant was not duly served of the notice of the hearing fixed by the Arbitrator. The complainant admitted that he had submitted his statement of objections on 31st May, 1994 before the Arbitrator. The State Commission opined that the complainant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case at the time of hearing, and the Award dated 11.7.94 passed by the Arbitrator was set aside. The case was remanded back to the Arbitrator for re -hearing.

WE have heard Mr. S.S. Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner and have gone through the records carefully as the respondent herein (complainant) did not appear either in person or through an authorised agent despite service. The consumers of telephone service are entitled to seek relief from the Consumer FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, inspite of the provisions contained in Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885. This Commission has taken the view that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provisions of the said Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law for the time being in force. In other words the Consumer Protection Act gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. The fact that the dispute involving meter reading and excess billing can be settled under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act does not therefore oust consumers from seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer FORA have jurisdiction to decide the disputes involving excess billing even when such dispute may be covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The District Forum did not adjudicate the consumer dispute but directed that the dispute relating to the telephone bills for the Cycles 7/93 and 9/93 be referred to arbitration for adjudication under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Consumer FORA have been granting such type of reliefs in suitable cases even in cases of excess billing relating to mal -functioning of telephone lines or apparatus but we are not called upon in this case to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of such orders. If the orders are consensual in nature, then they are not open to challenge in appeal or revision. The Award dated 11th July, 1994 made by Shri S.K. Bhaduri, Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act cannot be challenged by way of an appeal to the State Commission as it has no jurisdiction. The orders were passed by the District Forum on 1.12.93 for settlement of the dispute between the parties by adjudication under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Central Government in compliance with the direction of the District Forum appointed an Arbitrator and referred the disputes for settlement. Under Section 15 any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such Order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the Order, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order dated 1.12.93 of the District Forum but it has no power to entertain an appeal against the Award rendered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Sub -section (2) of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act provides that the Award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub -section (1) shall be conclusive to the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. Even if no finality is attached to the Award made under Section 7B, it may be open to challenge in appropriate proceedings but the Consumer FORA have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal or review the Awards made by the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

THE Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.12.95 passed by the West Bengal State Commission is set aside. We make no order as to costs. Revision allowed.