Case nº Revision Petition No. 64 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 22/04/2010 in Appeal No. 2316/2001 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, April 25, 2012 (case 1. Aslam Ali Khan and Ors. 2. Akram Ali Khan 3. Mukarram Ali Khan 4. Muazzam Ali Khan Vs 1. S.D.E. Telecommunications and Anr. 2. Divisional Engineer Telecommunications)
| President | Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member and Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member |
| Resolution Date | April 25, 2012 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
-
No one is present on behalf of the petitioners even on the 2nd call.
-
We have still carefully considered the subject matter of the revision petition which involves a dispute between a telephone connection holder (petitioner herein) and the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the Department concerned with regard to the amount of bills.
-
Without going into the details of the case, we would refer to the Apex Court''s decision dated 1st September 2009 in the case of "General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan and Another [(2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481)]. The relevant observations/directions of the Apex Court are reproduced below:-
".........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................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.
-
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.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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial