GOKULANAND SAHAY vs Chief General Manager

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had challenged the bills issued by the respondent being excessive, charging meter rent when it was not in use, causing harassment to him. The District Forum after hearing the parties, directed that the respondent shall issue bills on the average of previous six months bill beyond 15.5.1999 and the complainant shall pay the aforesaid revised bill within one month. The petitioner was also given rental rebate for the period the telephone was dead. Against that an appeal was filed by the respondent which was dismissed on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, matter needs to be referred to arbitration. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us. We heard the petitioner who appeared in person and by profession an Advocate. Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads as follows: "7B. 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 determi-nation, 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 (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

This Commission has consistently held that in matters of quantum dispute the jurisdiction lies with the competent authority under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, for the simple reason that it is not always possible for the Consumer Forums to sift through the evidence of the calls made, identification of the parties to whom the calls were made, etc.,which can be a time consuming exercise. The jurisdiction even otherwise has been held to be lying with the authorities/arbitrator appointed by the competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In view of the settled position of law held consistently by this Commission, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and they have rightly held that the matter should go for arbitration under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petition filed before us, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.