- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant disconnected Respondent 1’s telephone connection due to non-payment of telephone bills. Aggrieved, Respondent 1 lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode, which on 26-11-2001 directed reconnection of the telephone and awarded Rs 5000 compensation with 12% interest. The appellant challenged the Consumer Forum’s jurisdiction by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala; a learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. A writ appeal followed, which the Division Bench referred to a Full Bench. By order dated 14-2-2003, the Full Bench dismissed the writ appeal. The present appeal was filed by special leave against that Full Bench judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which provides for arbitration of disputes concerning telephone services, bars the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act for non-payment-related disconnection disputes.
- Whether the High Court erred in affirming the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum despite the special statutory remedy contained in the Telegraph Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 | A specialised statutory remedy ousts the jurisdiction of consumer fora where the special law is intended to be exclusive. | Relied upon to support the proposition that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction when a special mechanism is provided by another statute, analogous to the present dispute under the Telegraph Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act expressly prescribes arbitration for disputes between the telegraph authority and subscribers concerning telephone services. Rule 413 declares that all telephone services are governed by the Telegraph Rules, and Rule 443 authorises disconnection for non-payment. Because the Telegraph Act constitutes a special law that specifically addresses such disputes, the Court applied the maxim that a special law overrides a general law. Consequently, the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is, by necessary implication, barred for telephone-bill disputes. Citing the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation decision, the Court reinforced that consumer fora cannot entertain complaints where a specialised statutory forum exists. On this basis, the High Court’s affirmation of Consumer Forum jurisdiction was deemed erroneous.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the judgments of the High Court and the District Consumer Forum dated 26-11-2001 are set aside.
The immediate effect is that Respondent 1’s reliefs ordered by the Consumer Forum stand annulled, and any dispute over the telephone bill must proceed under the arbitration mechanism prescribed by Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. The decision reiterates the principle that specialised statutory remedies preclude recourse to consumer fora, but it sets no new precedent beyond affirming that established doctrine.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondents although they had been served.
2. This appeal is directed against the Full Bench judgment and order dated 14-2-2003 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 Respondent 1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected.
3. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, Respondent 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 herein to reconnect the telephone connection to Respondent 1 and pay compensation of Rs 5000 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.
4. 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.
5. In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.
6. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:
“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 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-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.”
7. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to the Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.
8. 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. In Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn. v. 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.
9. 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 26-11-2001. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.
Alert