General Manager, Telecom vs M. Krishnan & Anr

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7687 OF 2004

General Manager, Telecom .... Appellant

Versus

M. Krishnan & Anr. .... Respondent

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

No one appears for the respondents although they had

been served.

This appeal is directed against the Full Bench

judgment and order dated 14.02.2003 of the High Court of

Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the Writ Appeal filed by the

appellant herein has been dismissed.

The dispute in this case was regarding non-payment

of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to

the respondent No. 1 and for the said non-payment of the

bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved

against the said disconnection, the respondent No. 1 filed a

complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer

Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant 2

herein to re-connect the telephone connection to the

respondent No. 1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with

interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the

complaint.

Aggrieved against the order of the Consumer Forum,

the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court

of Kerala challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer

forum. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed

the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ

Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The

Division Bench felt that the matter required consideration

by a larger Bench and hence the matter was placed before the

Full Bench. By the impugned order the Full Bench of the

High Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, the

appellant is before us by way of present appeal by special

leave.

In our opinion when there is a special remedy

provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act

regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the

remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication

barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:-

"S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in 3

this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph

line, appliance or apparatus arises between the

telegraph authority and the person or whose

benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or

has been provided, the dispute shall be

determined by arbitration and shall, for the

purpose of such determination, be referred to an

arbitrator appointed by the Central Government

either specifically 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-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the

parties to the dispute and shall not be

questioned in any Court."

Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services

relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A

telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph

Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the

Rules.

It is well settled that the special law overrides

the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was

not correct in its approach.

4

In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs.

Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 it was held

that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor

vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the

aforesaid judgment.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set

aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as

well as the order of the District Consumer Forum dated

26.11s.2001.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

.....................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 01, 2009