Complaint against MTNL in consumer court

after perusal of SC  judgement it seems arbitrator clause is covered only for state run telephone corporation as only they come under the defination of  TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY AS

MTNL IS COMES UNDER TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY, IT IS BETTER TO FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST MTNL BEFORE TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY.

It appears that the latest Judgement (which appears to be ex-parte) has not considered the some earlier judgements of the Hon. SC, the most important of which is a THREE Judges Bench dicision in AIR 2000 SC 2008 "Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd." passed by G. B. PATTANAIK, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S. N. VARIAVA, JJ.

Although the case was a bit different in para 2 of the Judgement the Hon. SC observed :-

"2.........................................Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force"

Two other division bench judgements should also have been considered:-

AIR 2004 SC 448 "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agrl. Credit. Socy. v. M. Lalitha"

AIR 1997 SC 533 "Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., M/S. v. N. K. Modi"

Please also refer to the following Article::::: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/article_list_detail.asp?article_id=1697

Dear Members,

Justice Katcu's judgement is opposed by one of the ex-mambers of the forum in a Blog of Mahanagar Graham Panchayath. I am attaching contents of the blog