Idea Cellular Ltd. Punjab Circle vs HARJEET SINGH

THERE is a delay of 9 days in filing this revision petition. For reasons stated in application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, the delay in question is condoned.

WE have heard Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. In this case it is noted that the consumer dispute raised by the respondent Harjeet Singh pertains to his mobile connection provided by the petitioner Company (its earlier name was Spice Communications Ltd.). Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondent had filed a complaint in the District Forum Ferozpur which was allowed by the District Forum. Dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the State Commission also upheld the order of the District Forum vide its impugned order dated 5.3.2010 which is now under challenge through the present revision petition.

AT the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the legal position as settled by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and Another, III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC)=VII (2009) SLT 160=(2009) 8 SCC 484 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only as provided for in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. In view of this ruling of the Apex Court which is binding on all the sub-ordinate Courts, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence is liable to be set aside.

IN view of the ruling of the Apex Court (supra), the impugned order is set aside with liberty to the respondent to take recourse to arbitration proceedings to redress his grievance in accordance with the provisions of law. Revision petition stands disposed of in terms of these orders. No costs. Revision Petition disposed of.