GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM versus M. KRISHNAN & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 01-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 86 
·~ 
"' 
A 
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM 
" 
. t 
v. 
M. KRISHNAN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004) 
,.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885: 
c 
s. 7-B rlw rr.412 and 443 of Telegraph Rules - Non-
payment of telephone bill -
Telephone disconnected -
,..
Complaint before District Consumer Forum - Forum .directing 
reconnection and payment of compensation with interest -
Single Judge of High Court dismissing writ petition of 
'f' 
D Telephone Department and Full Bench thereof dismissing 
Department's appeal - Held: There is the special remedy 
provided uls. 7-8 of the Act regarding telephone disputes and, 
therefore, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act by 
E 
implication is barred - Servicf]s relating to telephone are 
subject to Telegraph Rules -
A telephone can be 
disconnected for default in payment under r. 443 - Special 
law overrides the general law. - High Court was not correct in 
f 
its approach - Judgment of High Court and order of District 
.... 
Forum set-aside -
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -
F Telegraph Rules 1951 -rr. 413 and 443 
Thiruval/uvar Transport Corporation vs. Consumer 
Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479, relied on 
Case Law Reference: 
G 
1995(2) sec 479 
relied on 
para 8 
-1. 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7687 of 2004. 
H 
86 
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN & 87 
ANR. 
.l 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.2.2003 of the High A 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. ·535 of 
2002(D). 
Haris Beeran (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
8 
ORDER 
i 
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 
2. No one appears for the respondents although they had c 
,.; 
been served. 
3. This appeal is directed against the Full Bench judgment 
... 
and order dated 14.02.2003 of the High Court of Kerala at 
..,, 
Ernakulam whereby tile Writ Appeal filed by the appellant D 
· herein has been dismissed. 
4. 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 E 
telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrievedagainst 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 ~erein to re-
F 
" 
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. 
5. Aggrieved against the order of the Consumer Forum, 
the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala G 
')-. 
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 H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A was placed before the Full Bench. By the impugned order the 
;I.. 
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. 
8 
6. 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 
C.onsumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-
t 
B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:-
c 
"S. 7B 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 
" 
D 
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 
E 
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) 
"1 
shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and 
shall not be questioned in any Court." 
F 
Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.