1
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
