Case Law Details
The remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy for consumers and not in derogation of remedy available under Section 8-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
1. The petitioner is consumer of respondent No. 2 within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1986) and respondent No. 2 is licensee of respondent No. 3/Telecom Authorities. The petitioner raised a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1986 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (hereinafter called as “District Forum”), Korba constituted under Section 9 of Act of 1986 stating inter alia that respondent No. 2 has adopted unfair trade practice in providing telecom services though the petitioner has paid for data service and while using the data services, balance lying in call account was deducted unauthorizedly which amounts to unfair trade practice and as such appropriate relief by granted to the petitioner.
2. The District Forum, Korba rejected the complaint filed by petitioner by order dated 27.02.2013 holding that complaint is barred under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1885”) as statutory alternative remedy of arbitration is available to the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, Korba, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Act of 1986 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as “State Commission”). The State Commission by the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 affirmed the order passed by the District Forum relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another, holding that the petitioner has a special remedy of arbitration provided under Section 7-B of the Act of 1885 in respect of the dispute so raised and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed before this Court stating inter alia that Section 3 of the Act 1986 provides that the provision of the Act of 1986 shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force, therefore, the consumer dispute raised by the petitioner before the District Forum was maintainable and prayer was made for setting aside the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission as they are contrary to the express provision contained in Section 3 of Act of 1986. The averment made in the writ petition has been controverted by the respondents by filing counter affidavit.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
