8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014
TryouttheVirtualLegalAssistanttobuildyourcasebriefsasyouusethewebsiteandtoprofessionally
manageyourlegalresearch.BecomeaPremiumMemberandenjoyadfreeexperience.Freeforthree
monthsandpayonlyifyoulikeit.
StateConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission

DailyOrder

FirstAppealNo.FA/04/2009(Arisenoutof

OrderDatednullinCaseNo.ofDistrict)1.Gen.Manager,GMTD,BSNLShg.
ShillongBEFORE:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPKMusaharyPRESIDENTHON'BLE
MR.RameshBawriMEMBERFortheAppellant:Mr.S.C.Shyam,AdvocateForthe
Respondent:Mr.M.Sharma,Advocate

ORDER

PerShriRameshBawri,SeniorMember

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

1/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

1.
ThisentirebatchofappealsarisesfromorderspassedbythelearnedDistrictConsumerDisputes
RedressalForumsofEastKhasiHillsandRiBhoiDistrictsofMeghalaya,hereinafterreferredtoasthe
learnedDistrictForaorForumsinrespectofComplaintsfiledbyvariousConsumersagainstBharatSanchar
NigamLimitedhereinafterreferredtoasBSNL.Inalltherelatedorderssomereliefortheotherhasbeen
grantedbythelearnedDistrictForaand,besidesthat,thelearnedForahaveturneddownBSNLspleathat
theConsumerForahavejurisdictionovercomplaintsordisputesrelatingtothetelecomortelegraph
servicesprovidedbythem.HencetheAppeals.
2.AsthejurisdictionoftheConsumerForaisacommongroundofappealandgoestotherootofthe
matter,itwasourconsideredviewthatthemaintainabilityofthecomplaintsbefirstdecidedasapreliminary
issueasnopurposewouldbeservedbygoingintothemeritsofeachappealincaseitwasultimately
decidedthatConsumerForadidindeedhavenojurisdictionoversuchcases.Hence,withtheconsentof
therespectivecounselsoftheAppellantsaswellasalltheRespondents,wehavetakenupthisbatchof
Appealsforhearingonthecommonpreliminaryissueastowhetherornotthecomplaintsfiledbythe
ComplainantsinrespectoftelecomortelegraphservicesavailedbythemfromBSNL,theAppellants,were
maintainablebeforetherespectivelearnedDistrictForums.
3.HeardShriS.C.Shyam,learnedseniorcounselforBSNL,theAppellants,assistedbyShriB.Deb,
Advocate.AlsoheardShriSandeepJindal,learnedcounselfortheRespondentinF.A.No.5of2006who
hasledthebatteryofAdvocatesfortheRespondentsandalsotherespectivecounselsoftheRespondents
intheotherAppeals,allofwhomhaveadoptedandendorsedtheargumentsmadebyShriS.Jindal.
4.ShriS.C.ShyamhasvehementlyarguedthattherespectiveDistrictForalackedinherentjurisdictionto
entertainthecomplaintsinquestioninthemannerthattheydid,sincethemattersagitatedinthesaid
complaintsdidnotfallwithintheambitofconsumerdisputesundertheConsumerProtectionAct,1986,
hereinafterreferredtoastheC.P.Actandassuchtheimpugnedordersarewhollywithoutjurisdiction,bad
inlawandliabletobesetasideandquashed.ShriS.C.Shyamhasplacedcompleterelianceonthe
judgmentpassedbytheHonbleSupremeCourtinGeneralManager,TelecomvsM.KrishnanandAnr.,
reportedinAIR2010SC90whichweshallhereinafterrefertoastheKrishnancasejudgmentand,
accordingtohim,thisjudgmentaloneisenoughtoprovehispointwithoutanyfurtherado.Healsobringsto
ournoticethatfollowingthisjudgmentseveralHonbleStateCommissionsofourcountryincludingthoseof
theStatesofAndhraPradesh,Bihar,Goa,Haryana,JammuandKashmir,UttarakhandandWestBengal
haveheldthatConsumerForaarebarredfromentertainingcomplaintsrelatingtotelecomservicesandthat
theonlycourseopentoconsumersistoseekarbitrationoftheirdisputesundertheprovisionsofSection7B
oftheIndianTelegraphAct,1885hereinafterreferredtoastheTelegraphAct.Mr.S.C.Shyamtherefore
praysthatwetooshouldfollowsuit.
5.Ontheotherhand,ShriSandeepJindal,whilefairlyconcedingthatseveralHonbleStateCommissions
ofourcountryhaveindeedheldthattheConsumerForahavenojurisdictionoverdisputesrelatingeitherto
landlineorcellulartelephones,howeverpointsoutthatthesedecisionshavebeenreachedsimplybyrelying
upontheKrishnancasewithoutdelvingintoanddiscussingthefactualsituationofthecasesandornoticing
thedistinctionsandpraysthatweshouldnotfollowsuitinaroutinemannerandoughttotakean
independentview.HefurthersubmitsthatwhentheapplicabilityoftheKrishnancasetothepresentAppeals
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

2/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

isexamined,itwillbecrystalclearthatthefactsthereinareclearlydistinguishableandthattheConsumer
ForahavethefullestjurisdictionoverdisputesbetweenconsumersandtheAppellants.Tobuttresshis
prayerthatweshouldnotbeledbytheAppellantstofollowtheKrishnanjudgmentblindly,hecitesAmbica
QuarryWorksetc.vsStateOfGujaratandOrsAIR1987SC1073whereinPara18theHonbleApexCourt
hadheldthat......Theratioofanydecisionmustbeunderstoodinthebackgroundofthefactsofthatcase.
Ithasbeensaidlongtimeagothatacaseisonlyanauthorityforwhatitactuallydecides,andnotwhat
logicallyfollowsfromit.....
6.Obviously,onesimpleandeasywayforuswouldbetofollowtheKrishnanjudgmentandholdthat
ConsumerForahavenojurisdictionoverdisputesrelatingtolandlinephonesandmobilephones,without
evenattemptingtoseethecircumstancesunderwhichthesaiddecisionwasrenderedandwhowerethe
partiesinvolved.TheotherwaywouldbetoseewhetherthecasesbeforeusaresimilartoKrishnanin
natureorwhetherthereareanydistinguishingfeaturesandalsotoexaminehowlargerandorearlier
BenchesoftheHonbleApexCourthaveviewedthematterofjurisdictionoftheConsumerFora.Toour
mind,tofollowthefirstwaywouldamounttoderelictionofdutyonourpartandbeunfairtotheRespondents
herein,consumersforwhosebenefitConsumerForahavebeenspeciallycreated.Thesecondcourse
appealstousasbeingmorefairandjustand,therefore,thisisthecourseweshalladopt,bearinginmind
thenotesofcautionrepeatedlysoundedbytheourApexCourtagainstfollowingitsjudgmentsblindlyin
Ambicasupraandinseveralotherjudgments,twoofwhicharequotedbelow.Wemaystateherethatwe
willuseonlyashortpartynameinourcasereferences,wherevertheyarerepeated,forthesakeofbrevity.
iHonbleJusticeV.R.KrishnaIyer,theShakespeareoflegalwritingwhosejudgmentswereasmuchlegal
literatureaslegalrulings,saidinhisinimitablemannerinTheMumbaiKamgarSabha,BombayvsMs
AbdulbhaiFaizullabhaiandOrsAIR1976SC1455,Para38thatItistrite,goingbyAnglophonicprinciples,
thatarulingofasuperiorcourtisbindinglaw.Itisnotofscripturalsanctitybutisofratiowiseluminosity
withintheedificeoffactswherethejudiciallampplaysthelegalflame.Beyondthosewallsanddehorsthe
milieuwecannotimparteternalvernalvaluetothedecision,exaltingthedoctrineofprecedentsintoaprison
houseofbigotry,regardlessofvaryingcircumstancesandmyriaddevelopments.Realismdictatesthata
judgmenthastoberead,subjecttothefactsdirectlypresentedforconsiderationandnotaffectingthose
matterswhichmaylurkintherecord.....
iiAgain,inTheStateFinancialCorporationandAnrvsMSJagdambaOilMillsandAnr AIR2002SC834,
Para21itwasdictatedthatCircumstantialflexibility,oneadditionalordifferentfactmaymakeaworldof
differencebetweenconclusionsintwocases.Disposalofcasesbyblindlyplacingrelianceonadecisionis
notproper.
7.Attheveryoutset,sincetheentirecaseoftheAppellantsrestsonthecaseof GeneralManager,
TelecomvsM.KrishnanandAnr.reportedinAIR2010SC90andweshallbeanalyzingitthreadbareto
understanditsreasoningandimpact,weproposetoreproducebelowthesaidjudgmentoftheHonble
SupremeCourtverbatimHeardlearnedcounselfortheappellant.
2.Nooneappearsfortherespondentsalthoughtheyhadbeenserved.
3.ThisappealisdirectedagainsttheFullBenchjudgmentandorderdated14.02.2003oftheHighCourtof
KeralaatErnakulamwherebytheWritAppealfiledbytheappellanthereinhasbeendismissed.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

3/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

4.Thedisputeinthiscasewasregardingnonpaymentoftelephonebillforthetelephoneconnection
providedtotherespondentNo.1andforthesaidnonpaymentofthebillthetelephoneconnectionwas
disconnected.Aggrievedagainstthesaiddisconnection,therespondentNo.1filedacomplaintbeforethe
DistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalForum,Kozhikode.Byorderdated26.11.2001,theConsumerForum
allowedthecomplaintanddirectedtheappellant2hereintoreconnectthetelephoneconnectiontothe
respondentNo.1andpaycompensationofRs.5,000withinterestat12percentperannumfromthedate
offilingofthecomplaint.
5.AggrievedagainsttheorderoftheConsumerForum,theappellantfiledawritpetitionbeforetheHigh
CourtofKeralachallengingthejurisdictionoftheconsumerforum.AlearnedSingleJudgeoftheHighCourt
dismissedthewritpetition.Thereafter,theappellantfiledaWritAppealbeforetheDivisionBenchoftheHigh
Court.TheDivisionBenchfeltthatthematterrequiredconsiderationbyalargerBenchandhencethe
matterwasplacedbeforetheFullBench.BytheimpugnedordertheFullBenchoftheHighCourthas
dismissedthewritappeal.Hence,theappellantisbeforeusbywayofpresentappealbyspecialleave.
6.InouropinionwhenthereisaspecialremedyprovidedinSection7BoftheIndianTelegraphAct
regardingdisputesinrespectoftelephonebills,thentheremedyundertheConsumerProtectionActisby
implicationbarred.Section7BoftheTelegraphActreadsasunderS.7BArbitrationofDisputes
1.ExceptasotherwiseexpresslyprovidedinthisAct,ifany,disputeconcerninganytelegraphline,
applianceorapparatusarisesbetweenthetelegraphauthorityandthepersonforwhosebenefittheline,
applianceorapparatusis,orhasbeenprovided,thedisputeshallbedeterminedbyarbitrationandshall,for
thepurposesofsuchdetermination,bereferredtoanarbitratorappointedbytheCentralGovernmenteither
specificallyforthedeterminationofthatdisputeorgenerallyforthedeterminationofdisputesunderthis
Section.
2.Theawardofthearbitratorappointedundersubsection1shallbeconclusivebetweenthepartiestothe
disputeandshallnotbequestionedinanycourt.
Rule413oftheTelegraphRulesprovidesthatallservicesrelatingtotelephonearesubjecttoTelegraph
Rules.AtelephoneconnectioncanbedisconnectedbytheTelegraphAuthorityfordefaultofpaymentunder
Rule443oftheRules.
7.Itiswellsettledthatthespeciallawoverridesthegenerallaw.Hence,inouropiniontheHighCourtwas
notcorrectinitsapproach.
8.InChairman,ThiruvalluvarTransportCorporationVs.ConsumerProtectionCouncil19952SCC479it
washeldthattheNationalCommissionhasnojurisdictiontoadjudicateuponclaimsforcompensation
arisingoutofmotorvehiclesaccidents.Weagreewiththeviewtakenintheaforesaidjudgment.
9.Inviewoftheabove,weallowthisappeal,setasidetheimpugnedjudgmentandorderoftheHighCourt
aswellastheorderoftheDistrictConsumerForumdated26.11.2001.
10.Appealallowed.Noorderastothecosts.
8.Section7BoftheIndianTelegraphAct,1885whichhasbeenreferredtointheaforementioned
judgmentandisvitallyimportantfordisposaloftheseappealshasalreadybeenquotedbytheHonble
SupremeCourtinPara6thereof,weshallthereforenotburdenthisjudgmentbyquotingitagain.However,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

4/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

asweshallsoonseeor,rather,asShriJindalshallsoonshowus,thespecificmeaningoftheterms
telegraph,telegraphlineandtelegraphauthoritywhichhavebeenusedinSection7BoftheTelegraphAct
arealsoveryrelevantforacompleteappreciationofthesaidsectionandwethereforenotebelowthe
definitionsofthese3terms,ascontainedinSection3oftheTelegraphAct31AAtelegraphmeansany
appliance,instrument,materialorapparatususedorcapableofusefortransmissionorreceptionofsigns,
signals,writing,imagesandsoundsorintelligenceofanynaturebywire,visualorotherelectromagnetic
emissions,radiowavesorHertzianwaves,galvanic,electricormagneticmeans34telegraphlinemeansa
wireorwiresusedforthepurposeofatelegraph,withanycasing,coating,tubeorpipeenclosingthesame,
andanyappliancesandapparatusconnectedtherewithforthepurposeoffixingorinsulatingthesame36
telegraphauthoritymeanstheDirectorGeneralofPostsandTelegraphs,andincludesanyofficer,
empoweredbyhimtoperformalloranyofthefunctionsofthetelegraphauthorityunderthisAct
9.BarereadingofSection7BoftheTelegraphActalongwiththevariousdefinitionsquotedaboveleave
noroomfordoubtthat,forthissectiontobeoperativeinanymanner,therelateddisputemusti.be
concerningatelegraphline,applianceorapparatusandfurtherii.bebetweenthetelegraphauthorityand
thepersonforwhosebenefitthesaidtelegraphline,applianceorapparatushasbeenprovidedinother
words,betweentheDirectorGeneralofPostsandTelegraphsoranyofficerempoweredbyhimanda
consumerofthetelegraphservices.Further,theofficerempoweredobviouslyreferstoanofficerofthe
Departmentandnototherwise.
10.ShriS.Jindalhassubmittedthattheyear1985sawthebifurcationoftheerstwhileMinistryofPosts
andTelegraphsandcreationoftheDepartmentofTelecommunicationsintheMinistryofCommunications
andInformationTechnology,GovernmentofIndia.ThereuponthepostofDirectorGeneralofPostsand
Telegraphsreferredtointhesaidsectionhasceasedtoexistand,assuch,asthesectionpresentlystands,
thesectionisinoperable.Goingfurther,hesubmitsthat,evenifweweretoreadthesaidpostofDirector
GeneralofPostsandTelegraphsasmeaningtheHeadofthepresentDepartmentofTelecommunications,it
wouldstillmeanonlythesaidHeadofDepartmentoranyofficeroftheDepartmentempoweredbyhimand,
undernocircumstances,anyotherlicenseeorserviceprovider.Hence,nootherpersonorentitycouldclaim
tobeaTelegraphAuthorityasdefinedundertheActandnodisputewithsuchpersonorentitywouldfall
withinthepurviewofSec7BoftheTelegraphAct.Weareinfullagreementwiththissubmissionandthere
canbenootherinterpretationoftheclearwordscontainedinSection7BoftheTelegraphAct.
11.Havingestablishedthismuch,weshallnowendeavourtodiscernwhetherornottheKrishnanjudgment
isonallfourswithandthereforeapplicabletothepresentbatchofAppeals,forwhichpurposeweshall
analyzetherespectivefactualsituations.ExaminationofthefactsoftheKrishnancaserevealsthatit
involvedadisputebetweentheGeneralManager,Telecomandaconsumerinrespectofatelephone
landlinewhichwasdisconnectedfornonpaymentofbillsometimeintheyear2001.TheGeneralManager,
Telecom,theAppellanttherein,beinganauthorizedofficerintheDepartmentofTelecommunications,
GovernmentofIndia,itcanbesafelysaidthatthedisputewasbetweentheDept.ofTelecommunications
andtheconsumerShriM.KrishnanandthesaidofficerwasalsoaTelegraphAuthority.Inviewofthe
definitionsofTelegraphLineandTelegraphAuthorityascontainedinSections34and36oftheIndian
TelegraphAct,1885,whichwehavequotedabove,itcanthereforebesaidthatthedisputewasinrespectof
aTelegraphLinebesidesalsobeingbetweenaTelegraphAuthorityinasmuchastheGeneralManager
TelecomrepresentedtheDepartmentofTelecommunicationswhichwasthesuccessortotheDepartment
ofPostsandTelegraphsandthepersonforwhosebenefitthelinehadbeenprovided.Itisthereforeclear

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

5/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

thatSection7BoftheTelegraphActwasapplicabletotheKrishnancaseandwasaccordinglyappliedbythe
HonbleSupremeCourt.
12.However,asfarasthebatchofappealswhichisunderourpresentconsiderationisconcerned,the
factualsituationisquitedifferent.After2001,theyeartowhichtheKrishnancaserelated,timeshave
changed,playershavechanged.Thetelecomsectorhasundergoneametamorphosis.Itisnolongerrun
directlybyaDepartmentoftheGovernmentandisruneitherbylicencedpublicorprivatesectorcompanies.
Section7BoftheTelegraphActnolongerhasnoapplicationwhatsoeverforthesimplereasonthatBSNL,
theAppellants,noranyofitsofficersareorcanbedeemedtobeTelegraphAuthorities,althoughMr.S.C.
ShyamhasvehementlyclaimedthattheAppellantshavesteppedintotheshoesoftheDirectorGeneralof
PostsandTelegraphsandareevenempoweredtoappointarbitratorsincaseaconsumerapproaches
BSNLforarbitration.Despiteopportunitybeinggiventohim,hecouldnot,however,placeanydocument
beforeustobackuptheseclaimsofhis.Asdiscussedabove,Section7BoftheTelegraphActappliesonlyif
thedisputeisbetweenaTelegraphAuthorityandaconsumer,whereas,inourconsideredview,BSNLis
clearlynotaTelegraphAuthorityfortheundermentionedreasonsaAsstatedearlier,accordingtothe
definitionofTelegraphAuthoritycontainedinSection36oftheTelegraphAct,onlytheDirectorGeneralof
PostsandTelegraphsoranyOfficerempoweredbyhimcanbeorcanbedeemedtobeaTelegraph
Authority.Surelytherefore,neitherBSNLwhichisaCompanyregisteredundertheCompaniesAct,1956,
noranyofitsofficerscanclaimtoholdthispostwhichisestablishedbyandundertheCentralGovernment.
bThefactthatBSNLisnotaTelegraphAuthoritybutismerelyaServiceProviderLicenseeisfurtherclearly
borneoutbythefollowingdefinitionsofLicensee,LicensorandServiceProvider,inSections2e,2eaand
2joftheTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityofIndiaAct ,1997hereinafterTRAIActwhichwasenacteduponthe
adventofthetelecommunicationboominIndia.
2elicenseemeansanypersonlicensedundersubsection1ofsection4ofIndianTelegraphAct,188513of
1885forprovidingspecifiedpublictelecommunicationservices.
2ealicensormeanstheCentralGovernmentorthetelegraphauthoritywhograntsalicenceundersection4
oftheIndianTelegraphAct,188513of1885.
2jserviceprovidermeanstheGovernmentasaserviceproviderandincludesalicensee.
IfBSNLweretoclaimtobeaTelegraphAuthority,thenitwouldhavetobeboththeLicensorandthe
Licensee,whichwouldbeanabsurdity.
ForthesakeofcompletenessitmayalsobestatedherethatTelecommunicationServices,fortheregulation
ofwhichtheTRAIActhasbeenframed,havebeendefinedinSection2koftheActinthefollowingwords.
2ktelecommunicationservicemeansserviceofanydescriptionincludingelectronicmail,voicemail,
dataservices,audiotexservices,videotexservices,radiopagingandcellularmobiletelephoneservices
whichismadeavailabletousersbymeansofanytransmissionorreceptionofsigns,signals,writing,images
andsoundsorintelligenceofanynature,bywire,radio,visualorotherelectromagneticmeanbutshallnot
includebroadcastingservices.......
c.Section13aoftheTelecomConsumersProtectionandRedressalofGrievancesRegulations2007
framedbytheTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityofIndiahereinafterTRAIandreproducedbelowmakesityet

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

6/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

furtherclearthatBSNLisacompanyregisteredundertheCompaniesAct,1956andisonlyaService
Provider.
Section13.TheseregulationsshallapplytoaallserviceprovidersincludingBharatSancharNigam
LimitedandMahanagarTelephoneNigamLimited,beingthecompaniesregisteredundertheCompanies
Act,19561of1956providing,.
iBasicTelephoneService.
iiUnifiedAccessServices.
iiiCellularMobileTelephoneService.
d.ShriSandeepJindal,learnedcounselfortheRespondentinF.A.No.5of2006hasalsoproducedbefore
usacopyoftheclarificationissuedbytheMinistryofCommunicationsandIT,Departmentof
Telecommunications,GovernmentofIndiavideMemoNo.07.322007.PHPPt.dated19.10.2009whichis
reproducedbelow,whichfurtherunambivalentlyandauthenticallyconfirmsthatprivateandpublicservice
providers,suchasBSNLarenotTelegraphAuthoritiesundertheTelegraphAct.
No.07.322007.PHPPt.
GovernmentofIndiaMinistryofCommunicationsandITDepartmentofTelecommunications1205,Sanchar
Bhawan,AshokaRoad,NewDelhiDated19thOct.,2009
ToSh.S.C.Khanna,SecretaryGeneral,AUSPI,
B.601,GauriSadan,5,HalleyRoad,NewDelhi.110001.
Subject..SupremeCourtJudgementregardingTelecomConsumerscannotapproach
ConsumerForumsforbillingdisputes.
Sir,KindlyrefertoyourletterNo.AUSPI.13.2009.141,dated1.10.2009seekingclarificationonthe
subjectcitedabove.Theclarificationisgivenbelow..
PointClarificationaAreprivateandpublicserviceprovidersaretelecomauthoritiesandprovisionsof
Section7.BapplicableonthemNo.PrivateandpublicserviceprovidersarenotTelegraphAuthority.Further,
onlyCentralGovt.canappointarbitratorunderSection7BofIndianTelegraphAct.
bCanprivateandpublicserviceprovidersastelecomauthorityappointarbitratorsforarbitrationofdisputes
Yoursfaithfully,Sd..
MishaBajpaiAssistantDirectorGeneralPHPTel.23036027eAsregardsBSNLsclaimthattheyare
empoweredtoappointarbitrators,relevantportionsofSection4oftheTelegraphActwhicharereproduced
belowclearlyshowthattheCentralGovernmentcandelegateitspowersonlytothetelegraphauthorityand
tononeother.alsothatthereisnoprovisionforthetelegraphauthoritytofurtherdelegateitsownpowersto
anyone,includingBSNL.
4.Exclusiveprivilegeinrespectoftelegraphs,andpowertograntlicenses.
1.WithinIndia,theCentralGovernmentshallhavetheexclusiveprivilegeofestablishing,maintainingand
workingtelegraphs.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

7/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

ProvidedthattheCentralGovernmentmaygrantalicense,onsuchconditionsandinconsiderationofsuch
paymentsasitthinksfit,toanypersontoestablish,maintainorworkatelegraphwithinanypartofIndia.
........
2.TheCentralGovernmentmay,bynotificationintheOfficialGazette,delegatetothetelegraphauthorityall
oranyofitspowersunderthefirstprovisotosub.section1.
........
13.OurconclusionabovethatBSNL,albeitaPublicSectorCompany,ismerelyalicensee.serviceprovider
andnotaTelegraphAuthoritynorisorcanbeempoweredtoactassuch,issufficienttodistinguishthe
presentbatchofAppealsfromthefactsoftheKrishnancaseandforustoholdthatthesaidesteemed
judgmenthasnoapplicationtotheinstantAppeals.Further,themomentwefindthatthesaidjudgmentis
inapplicable,beingdistinguishable,inviewofourearlierfindingthatSection7BoftheTelegraphActdoes
notapplytodisputesbetweenentitiesotherthanTelegraphAuthoritiesandconsumers,thereremainsno
impedimentwhatsoevertoourarrivingattheunmistakableconclusionthatConsumerForahavethefullest
jurisdictiontoentertaindisputesbetweenBSNLandorothersimilarserviceproviders.licenseesand
consumersoftelecom.telegraphservicesinIndia.Thisconclusionofoursaloneisthereforeadequatefor
thedisposalofthisbatchofAppealsonthepreliminaryissueofmaintainabilityandjurisdictionbyourholding
thatthelearnedDistrictForawererightandjustifiedintheirexercisingjurisdictionoverthevarious
consumerComplaints.
14.Itmaybestatedherethat,asfarasdisputesrelatingtoCellularMobileTelephoneservicesas
distinguishedfromBasicTelephoneServicesi.e.landlinesareconcerned,learnedcounselShriSandeep
Jindal,pointsoutthattherearetwoadditionalreasonswhySection7BoftheTelegraphActand,
consequently,theKrishnanjudgmenthavenoapplicationatall.Firstly,asdiscussedabove,Section7Bof
theTelegraphActappliesonlytodisputesconcerninganytelegraphline,applianceorapparatus.Since
telegraphlineasdefinedunderSection34ofthesaidActmeansawireorwiresusedforthepurposeofa
telegraph...,thenlogicallyandconverselySection7Bwouldnotapplytodisputeswherenowiresareused
fortelegraphy.Itisobviousthatcellularmobilephoneshavenowiresandthereforedisputesrelatingtosuch
phoneswouldnotbedisputesconcerninganytelegraphline.Secondly,forSec.7Btobeapplicableitis
requiredthatatelegraphline,applianceorapparatusmusthavebeenprovidedtotheuserbythetelegraph
authority.Inthecaseofdisputesrelatingtocellphones,thereisnoquestionofprovidinganytelegraphline,
applianceorapparatustotheuser.Allthataserviceproviderprovidestoaconsumerinthecaseofcell
phonesisaportablememorychipknownasaSIMCard,anabbreviationforSubscriberIdentityModule
Card,whichinouropinioncannotbetreatedeitherasanapplianceorasanapparatus.Theseindependent
additionalreasonswhichareapplicabletocellphonesleadustotheinevitableconclusionthatSection7Bof
theTelegraphActcannot,byanystretchofimagination,applytodisputesrelatingtocellphoneswhichfall
outsideitspurviewcompletelyandtherefore,inanyviewofthematter,theConsumerForahaveunfettered
jurisdictionoversuchdisputes.
15.Thereisofcourseyetanotheraspectofthematterwhichstrikesus.EvenbetweenaTelegraph
Authorityandaconsumer,section7Bappliesonlytoadisputeconcerninganytelegraphline,applianceor
apparatuswhich,toourmind,inthepresentcontext,meansadisputerelatingtoadefectintheconnection
ornonfunctioningofatelephoneprovidedbyatelegraphauthority.Mostoftheappealsbeingconsideredby
usrelatetobillingdisputesanddonotrelatetodefectsintheconnectionornonfunctioningoftelephones
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

8/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

andtherebydonotconcernatelegraphline,applianceorapparatus,perse.However,sincenoarguments
havebeenadvancedbeforeusonthisground,werefrainfromdelvingintoitanyfurtherandleaveitatthat.
16.Proceedingfurther,ShriS.Jindalhasmadeadditionalalternativesubmissionsbeforeusinsupportof
thejurisdictionoftheConsumerForainsuchmatterswhichweproposetodiscussforthesakeof
completeness,especiallyasthisisamatterhavinghugeramificationsaffectingtherightsofover90crores
usersoftelecom.telegraphservicesspreadoverourcountry.
17.LearnedRespondentsCounsel,ShriJindalsubmits,withutmostrespecttotheBenchofHonbleJudges
oftheHonbleSupremeCourtwhichdeliveredtheKrishnanjudgmentthatthesaidjudgment,although
distinguishable,evenifconsideredtobeapplicabletothepresentAppeals,isperincuriamandnotabinding
precedent.Inthisconnectionhedrawsourattentiontosection3oftheC.P.Act,whichreadsasfollows.
3.Actnotinderogationofanyotherlaw.TheprovisionsofthisActshallbeinadditiontoandnotin
derogationoftheprovisionsofanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce.
HealsoreferstothefollowingjudgmentsoftheHonbleSupremeCourtwherethewidereachoftheC.P.Act
hasbeenextensivelydiscussedandruledupon,evenbeforeKrishnan,particularlyinthelightofSection3of
theC.P.ActandtheprovisionsforarbitrationcontainedinSec.7BoftheTelegraphAct.Alongwiththe
citations,wehavealsoextractedbelowthosepartsofthejudgmentswhicharemostrelevantforour
purposes.
M.S.FairAirEngineersPvt.Ltd.vsN.K.ModiAIR1997SC533,Para15Itwould,therefore,beclearthat
theLegislatureintendedtoprovidearemedyinadditiontotheconsentientarbitrationwhichcouldbe
enforcedundertheArbitrationActorthecivilactioninasuitundertheprovisionsoftheCodeofCivil
Procedure......
SkypakCouriersLtd.vsTataChemicalsLtd.AIR2000SC2008,Para2....Evenifthereexistsan
arbitrationclauseinanagreementandacomplaintismadebytheconsumer,inrelationtocertaindeficiency
ofservice,thentheexistenceofanarbitrationclausewillnotbeabartotheentertainmentofthecomplaint
bytheRedressalAgency,constitutedundertheConsumerProtectionAct,sincetheremedyprovidedunder
theActisinadditiontotheprovisionsofanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce.
StateOfKarnatakavsVishwabarathiHouseBuildingCo.op.SocietyandOrs.AIR2003SC1043,Paras46
and48ByreasonoftheprovisionofSection3oftheAct,itisevidentthatremediesprovidedthereunder
arenotinderogationofthoseprovidedunderotherlaws.ThesaidActsupplementsandnotsupplantsthe
jurisdictionofthecivilcourtsorotherstatutoryauthorities.
TheprovisionsofthesaidActarerequiredtobeinterpretedasbroadlyaspossible.Ithasjurisdictionto
entertainacomplaintdespitethefactthatotherforumscourtswouldalsohavejurisdictiontoadjudicate
uponthelis.SeeFairAirEngineersvsN.K.Modi.....
Secretary,ThirumuruganCo.operativeAgriculturalCreditSocietyvsM.LalithaDeadThroughL.R.sandOrs
AIR2004SC448,Paras18and20....Provisionsof1986Act,asalreadymadeclearabove,applyin
additiontotheotherprovisionsavailableunderotherenactments.Itfollowsthattheremediesavailable
underthe1986Acti.e.C.P.Act,1986forredressalofdisputesareinadditiontotheavailableremedies
undertheActi.e.theTamilNaduCooperativeSocietiesAct,1983.Underthe1986Actwehavetoconsider
asregardstheadditionaljurisdictionconferredontheforumsandnottheirexclusion.....Merelybecausethe
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

9/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

rightsandliabilitiesarecreatedbetweenthemembersandthemanagementofthesocietyundertheAct
andforumsareprovided,itcannottakeawayorexcludethejurisdictionconferredontheforumsunderthe
1986ActexpresslyandintentionallytoserveadefinitecauseintermsoftheobjectsandreasonsoftheAct,
referencetowhichisalreadymadeabove....
Thus,havingregardtoallaspectsweareoftheviewthattheNationalCommissionwasrightinholdingthat
theviewtakenbytheStateCommissionthattheprovisionsundertheActrelatingtoreferenceofdisputesto
arbitrationshallprevailovertheprovisionsofthe1986Actisincorrectanduntenable....
Inaddition,wefindyetanotherjudgmentvizKishoreLalvsChairman,E.S.I.CorporationAIR2007SC1819
passedbya3.JudgeBenchonthesameissue,inawaysummingupitsearlierdecisionsinPara17
thereof.ThistoowasdeliveredpriortotheKrishnanjudgmentandreads.
....ThetrendofthedecisionsofthisCourtisthatthejurisdictionoftheconsumerforumshouldnotand
wouldnotbecurtailedunlessthereisanexpressprovisionprohibitingtheconsumerforumtotakeupthe
matterwhichfallswithinthejurisdictionofcivilcourtoranyotherforumasestablishedundersome
enactment.TheCourthadgonetotheextentofsayingthatiftwodifferentforahavejurisdictiontoentertain
thedisputeinregardtothesamesubject,thejurisdictionoftheconsumerforumwouldnotbebarredand
thepoweroftheconsumerforumtoadjudicateuponthedisputecouldnotbenegated.
18.Itwillbeimmediatelynoticedthatallthefiveaforementionedjudgmentswererenderedpriortothe
Krishnanjudgment.FurtherthatSkypack,VishwabarathiandKishoreLalhaveallbeenrenderedby
Benchesof3HonbleJudges,whereastheKrishnancasewasdecidedbyaBenchof2HonbleJudges.The
2.JudgeBenchFairAirjudgmenttoohasbeenimpliedlyapprovedinVishwabarathi.
Itmayalsobementionedherethat,evenaftertheKrishnanjudgment,thewideadditionaljurisdictionofthe
ConsumerFora,alsonotwithstandingtheprovisionsforarbitrationcontainedinotherlaw,continuedtobe
upheldbytheHonbleSupremeCourtinitsfollowingpronouncements.
TransMediterraneanAirwaysvsM.S.UniversalExportsandAnr .201110SCC316,Para32Inourview,
theprotectionprovidedundertheCPActtoconsumersisinadditiontotheremediesavailableunderany
otherStatute.ItdoesnotextinguishtheremediesunderanotherStatutebutprovidesanadditionalor
alternativeremedy.....
M.S.NationalSeedsCorpn.Ltd.vsM.MadhusudhanReddyandAnr.AIR2012SC1160,Paras23and29
....Thatapart,thereisnothingintheSeedsActandtheRuleswhichmaygiveanindicationthatthe
provisionsoftheConsumerActarenotavailabletothefarmerswhoareotherwisecoveredbythewide
definitionof`consumerunderSection2doftheConsumerAct.Asamatteroffact,anyattempttoexclude
thefarmersfromtheambitoftheConsumerActbyimplicationwillmakethatActvulnerabletoanattackof
unconstitutionalityonthegroundofdiscriminationandthereisnoreasonwhytheprovisionsofthe
ConsumerActshouldbesointerpreted.
Theremedyofarbitrationisnottheonlyremedyavailabletoagrower.Rather,itisanoptionalremedy.He
caneitherseekreferencetoanarbitratororfileacomplaintundertheConsumerAct.....Moreover,the
plainlanguageofSection3oftheConsumerActmakesitclearthattheremedyavailableinthatActisin
additiontoandnotinderogationoftheprovisionsofanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce.....

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

10/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

19.Toourmind,thesummarizedratiooftheseearlierandLargerBenchjudgmentsofourApexCourtis
thattheremediesavailabletoaconsumerundertheC.P.Actareinadditiontoanyremedyofarbitrationthat
mayhavebeenprovidedforinanyotherstatuteoranyagreementbetweenthepartiesandthesedonot
precludeaconsumerfromavailingtheremediesprovidedundertheC.P.Act.FurtherthattheConsumer
Forahavejurisdictiontoentertaincomplaintsevenifotherstatutesprovideforsimilarremedies.
20.ComingbacktothesubmissionsoflearnedcounselfortheRespondentsthattheKrishnanjudgmentis
perincuriam,weshallfirstseefromthefollowingjudgmentswhatperincuriammeans,whencanajudgment
betermedperincuriamandwhatistheconsequenceifitindeedisso.
A.R.AntulayvsR.S.NayakandAnrAIR1988SC1531,Paras44and49....Perincuriamarethose
decisionsgiveninignoranceorforgetfulnessofsomeinconsistentstatutoryprovisionorofsomeauthority
bindingontheCourtconcerned,sothatinsuchcasessomepartofthedecisionorsomestepinthe
reasoningonwhichitisbased,isfound,onthataccounttobedemonstrablywrong......
....ItisasettledrulethatifadecisionhasbeengivenperincuriamtheCourtcanignoreit.....
MunicipalCorporationofDelhivsGurnamKaurAIR1989SC38,Para11....Adecisionshouldbetreated
asgivenperincuriamwhenitisgiveninignoranceofthetermsofastatuteorofarulehavingtheforceofa
statute.
PunjabLandDevelopmentandReclamationCorporationLtd.,Chandigarhvs.PresidingOfficer,Labour
Court,Chandigarh1990SCC3682......TheLatinexpressionperincuriammeansthroughinadvertence.A
decisioncanbesaidgenerallytobegivenperincuriamwhenthisCourthasactedinignoranceofaprevious
decisionofitsown.....
V.KishanRaovsNikhilSuperSpecialityHospital20105SCC513,Para51Whenajudgmentisrendered
byignoringtheprovisionsofthegoverningstatuteandearlierlargerBenchdecisiononthepointsuch
decisionsarerenderedPerincuriam.....
21.FromtheKrishnanjudgment,whenseenthroughtheprismoftheaboverulings,itappearsthatneither
thestatutoryprovisionscontainedinSection3oftheC.P.ActwhichsaysthattheprovisionsoftheActshall
beinadditiontoandnotinderogationoftheprovisionsofanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforcenorany
ofthepriorLargerBenchjudgmentscitedbyusabovei.e.Skypack,Vishwabarathi,orKishoreLalwere
broughttothenoticeoftheHonbleJudgesandtheKrishnanjudgmentappearstohavebeenrenderedin
ignoranceofthesame.
Herewemustconfessthat,whileitisnottoodifficultforlearnedcounseltosubmitthatajudgmentofthe
HonbleSupremeCourtisperincuriamornotbindingasaprecedentforanyotherreason,Courtsand
TribunalsinferiortotheHonbleSupremeCourtlikeoursareboundtobeinastateoftrepidationwhile
acceptingsuchaplea,lesttheytripupdespitealltheirsincerityanddisciplineandincurthewrathofthe
HonbleSupremeCourt.Ourtrepidationisfurtheraccentuatedwhenweareconfrontedwithconflicting
decisionswhichweareunabletoreconcile,therebyleavingusfacingtheunenviablepropositionofperforce
havingtofollowonedecisionand,withutmostrespect,bypassingtheother,beingleftwithnootheroption.
Mercifully,however,theHonbleSupremeCourtitselfhasshownthepaththatistobefollowedinsituations
whereitsvariousjudgmentscannotbereconciled.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

11/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

AgaininA.R.AntulayvsR.S.NayakandAnr AIR1988SC1531,Para46aConstitutionBenchheldthatThe
principleinEnglandthatthesizeoftheBenchdoesnotmatter,isclearlybroughtoutinthedecisionof
EvershedM.R.inthecaseofMorellev.Wakeling,19551AllER708supra.ThelawlaiddownbythisCourt
issomewhatdifferent.ThereisahierarchywithintheCourtitselfhere,wherelargerBenchesoverrule
smallerBenches.....ThisisthepracticefollowedbythisCourtandnowitisacrystallisedruleoflaw....
DespiteourbesteffortswehavebeenunabletoreconciletheKrishnanjudgment,whichbarsthe
jurisdictionoftheConsumerForainviewofthearbitrationprovisionscontainedinSection7Bofthe
TelegraphAct,withthejudgmentsoftheHonbleSupremeCourtinSkypack,VishwabarathiandKishoreLal,
allofwhichwererenderedbyBenchesof3HonbleJudges,thattoopriortoKrishnan,thecumulativeratioof
which,asmentionedabove,isthattheremediesprovidedundertheC.P.Actareinadditiontotheremedy
ofarbitrationoranyotherremedyprovidedinotherActsandthatConsumerForahavethejurisdictionto
entertaincomplaintsunlessthereisanexpressprovisionprohibitingthemfromtakingupthematter.Aswe
findnosuchexpressprohibitioneitherintheTelegraphActorintheC.P.Act,we,withutmostrespecttothe
HonbleSupremeCourtandparticularlytheHonbleBenchthatdeliveredtheKrishnanjudgment,whilebeing
whilefullyconsciousofourplaceinthelegalhierarchyandtherequirementofmaintainingjudicialdiscipline
andpropriety,areobligedtofollowitsaforestated3JudgeBenchjudgments.
ShriJindalhasalsopointedouttousthatintheKrishnancasetheHonbleSupremeCourthasreliedupon
itsearlierjudgmentvizChairman,ThiruvalluvarTransportCorp.vsConsumerProtectionCouncilAIR1995
SC1384whereithadbeenheldinPara6that.
ThequestionwhichthenarisesforconsiderationiswhethertheNationalCommissionhadjurisdictionto
entertaintheclaimapplicationandawardcompensationinrespectofanaccidentinvolvingthedeathofShri
K.Kumarcausedbytheuseofamotorvehicle.ClearlytheClaimsTribunalconstitutedfortheareain
question,hadjurisdictiontoentertainanyclaimforcompensationarisingoutofthefatalaccidentsincesuch
aclaimapplicationwouldclearlyfallwithintheambitofSection165,ofthe1988ActMotorVehiclesAct.The
1988ActcanbesaidtobeaspecialActinrelationtoclaimsofcompensationarisingoutoftheuseofa
motorvehicle.The1986ActC.P.Actbeingalawdealingwiththequestionofextendingprotectionto
consumersingeneral,could,therefore,besaidtobeagenerallawinrelationtothespecificprovisions
concerningaccidentsarisingoutoftheuseofmotorvehiclesfoundinChapterXIIofthe1988Act.Ordinarily
thegenerallawmustyieldtothespeciallaw.......
26.HealsopointsouttheHonbleSupremeCourthasitselfearlierdistinguishedThiruvalluvarinanother
judgmentandheldthatitwasonlyinrespectofMotorAccidentClaimsthatthesaidjudgmentapplied.This
judgmentwasSecretary,ThirumuruganCo.operativeAgriculturalCreditSocietyvsM.LalithaDeadThrough
L.R.sandOrsAIR2004SC448whereinPara17itstatedasfollows.
ThelearnedcounselfortheappellantstronglyreliedonthedecisionofthisCourtinChairman,Thiruvalluvar
TransportCorporationvs.ConsumerProtectionCouncil19952SCC479.Adeeperlookatthefactsofthat
caseandquestionconsideredthereinmakeitclearthatitgovernsthefactofthatcasehavingregardtothe
specificprovisionscontainedintheMotorVehiclesAct,1988.....Ascanbeseenfromparagraph6ofthe
judgment,thequestionthataroseforconsiderationwaswhethertheNationalCommissionhadjurisdictionto
entertaintheclaimapplicationandawardcompensationinrespectofanaccidentinvolvingthedeathofa
personcausedbytheuseofamotorvehicle.TakingnoteofthefactthattheClaimsTribunalsconstituted
undertheMotorVehiclesAct,1988hadjurisdictiontoentertainclaimforcompensationwhichclearlyfell
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

12/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

withintheambitofSection165oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988,heldthatthe1988Actcanbesaidtobea
specialActinrelationtoclaimsofcompensationarisingoutoftheuseofamotorvehicle.Itisobservedthat
theaccidentoccurredhadnothingtodowithserviceprovidedtothedeceased,ifonereadstheprovision
alongwiththedefinitionofcomplaintinSection21candserviceinSection21oofthe1986Act.ThisCourt
heldthatthecomplaintinthatcasecouldnotbesaidtobeinrelationtoanyservicehiredoravailedbythe
consumerbecausetheinjurysustainedbytheconsumerhadnothingtodowiththeserviceprovidedor
availedbyhim.ThatwasacaseinwhichitwasfoundthattheNationalCommissionhadnojurisdictionatall.
Thatwasnotacaseofadditionalremedyavailablebeforeaforumcreatedunderthe1986Act.Inourview
thesaiddecisiondoesnotadvancethecaseoftheappellantinanyway.
27.WefindthatThiruvalluvarwassimilarlydistinguishedinyetanotherjudgmentoftheHonbleSupreme
CourtvizGeetuSapraandOrs.vsB.L.KapoorMemorialHospitalI2004CPJ11SCinthefollowingwords.
1......Bytheimpugnedjudgment,theNationalCommissiondismissedtheclaimmerelyonthegroundthat
inviewofthejudgmentofthisCourtinthecaseofChairman,ThiruvaluvarTransportCorporationv.
ConsumerProtectionCouncil,theyhadnojurisdiction.
2.Inourview,thisjudgmenthasnorelevanceatall.ThatwasacasewheretheclaimbeforetheNational
Commissionwasbasedontheaccidentitself.InthatcontextthisCourtheldthattheclaimbasedonamotor
accidentcanonlybebeforetheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.Inthiscase,theclaimisnotbasedonthe
accident.TheclaimisbasedontheallegednegligenceofthehospitalanddoctorsafterthesaidMr.Sapra
wastakentothehospital.Thatisentirelyadifferentcauseofaction.InrespectofsuchaclaimtheNational
Commissionwouldhavejurisdiction.
However,havingexaminedtheKrishnanjudgmentdeeply,weareoftheconsideredopinionthat,although
theHonbleSupremeCourtdidrefertoThiruvalluvarthere,itdidnotbaseitsdecisiononthesaidcase.It
onlyexpresseditsagreementwiththesaidjudgmentwhereinithadbeenheldthattheHonbleNational
Commissionhadnojurisdictiontoadjudicateuponclaimsforcompensationarisingoutofmotorvehicles
accidents.Hencewedonotproposetosayanythingfurtherinthisregard.
Asperourinterpretationofthejudgment,itwasonlyontwogroundsthattheHonbleSupremeCourtheld
inKrishnanthatjurisdictionoftheConsumerForawasbarred.Firstly,thatSection7BoftheTelegraphAct
providedaspecialremedyregardingdisputesinrespectoftelephonebills.Secondly,Para7oftheKrishnan
judgmentgoestoshowthattheHonbleSupremeCourttreatedtheTelegraphActasspeciallawandtheC.P.
Actasgenerallawanditheldthatspeciallawoverrodegenerallaw.
ThefirstaspectrelatingtoSection7B,TelegraphActhasalreadybeendealtwithbyusatlength.As
regardsthesecondquestionwhethertheC.P.Actisgenerallawwemustnowrefertothefollowing
subsequentjudgmentsoftheHonbleSupremeCourtitselfwhereinithasheldthattheC.P.Acttooisa
specialstatute.
InthematterofOmPrakashSainivsDCMLtd.andOrs.AIR2010SC2608,Para12itstated......Sincethe
1986ActisaspecialstatuteenactedbytheParliamentforbetterprotectionoftheinterestofconsumers
andawholesomemechanismhasbeenputinplaceforadjudicationofconsumerdisputes,theremedyof
appealavailabletoapersonaggrievedbyanorderoftheStateCommissioncannotbutbetreatedasan
effectivealternativeremedy.ItmaybenoticedherethatHonbleJusticeA.K.Gangulywhowasoneofthe
HonbleJudgeswhorenderedtheKrishanjudgementwashimselfontheBenchwhichdecidedtheabove.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

13/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

AgaininEthiopianAirlinesVsGaneshNarainSabooAIR2011SC3495,Para61a3.JudgeBenchofthe
ApexCourtunequivocallyheldthat.....TheRailwaysActprovidesforaforuminwhichasuitfor
compensationforlossoflifeof,orpersonalinjuryto,apassengerforloss,destruction,damage,
deteriorationornondeliveryofanimalsorgoodsagainstarailwayadministrationmaybebrought.Thisis
verymuchakintotheforacreatedbytheConsumerProtectionAct.Thus,asimilarfindingshouldbe
madehere.theConsumerProtectionandCarriersActsmustbedeemedspecialActsbypassing
Section86oftheCPC,withrespecttosuitscoveredbythosespecialActs.
Thereafter,anotherHonbleBenchof3JudgesintheirjudgmentC.VenkatachalamvsAjitkumarC.Shah
andOrs.20119SCC707whilenoticingintheAppealbeforetheminpara6thattheHonbleHighCourthad
heldthattheActof1986isaspecialpieceoflegislationforthebetterprotectionoftheinterestsof
consumersuphelditsentiredecisionholdinginPara112thatOnconsiderationoftotalityofthefactsand
circumstances,theviewtakenbytheDivisionBenchoftheBombayHighCourtintheimpugnedjudgment
cannotbesaidtobeerroneousandunsustainableinlaw.Consequently,theseappealsbeingdevoidofany
meritareaccordinglydismissed.
30.EthiopiaandVenkatachalamarejudgmentsrenderedbyHonble3.JudgeBenchesoftheHonble
SupremeCourtand,inviewoftheSubramanianandAntulayjudgmentswhichwehaveearlierreferredto,
decisionsoflargerbenchesoverruledecisionsofsmallerbenchesandthelargerbenchdecisionsaretobe
followed.Therefore,wehavebeforeusasituationwhereboththeTelegraphActandtheC.P.Actarespecial
acts,ofwhichtheTelegraphActistheearlieroneandtheC.P.Actthelater.Whichoneisthentobefollowed
TheanswerhasbeengiventousbytheHonbleSupremeCourtitselfinitsundernotedpronouncements
andtheansweristhatthelaterActmustprevail,which,inourcase,meanstheC.P.Act.
....Thegeneralruletobefollowedincaseofconflictbetweentwostatutesisthatthelaterabrogatesthe
earlierone.Inotherwords,apriorspeciallawwouldyieldtoalatergenerallaw,ifeitherofthetwofollowing
conditionsissatisfied.
iThetwoareinconsistentwitheachother,iiThereissomeexpressreferenceinthelatertotheearlier
enactment.
Ifeitherofthesetwoconditionsisfulfilled,thelaterlaw,eventhoughgeneral,wouldprevail.
Fromthetextandthedecisions,fourtestsarededucibleandtheseare.
iThelegislaturehastheundoubtedrighttoalteralawalreadypromulgatedthroughsubsequentlegislation,
iiAspeciallawmaybealtered,abrogatedorrepealedbyalatergenerallawbyanexpressprovision,iiiA
latergenerallawwilloverrideapriorspeciallawifthetwoaresorepugnanttoeachotherthattheycannot
coexisteventhoughnoexpressprovisioninthatbehalfisfoundinthegenerallaw,andivItisonlyinthe
absenceofaprovisiontothecontraryandofaclearinconsistencythataspeciallawwillremainwholly
unaffectedbyalatergenerallaw....
ThereafterinSolidaireIndiaLtd.vsFairgrowthFinancialServicesLtd.andOrs.AIR2001SC958,Para9
theHonbleApexCourtobserved.ItisclearthatboththeseActsarespecialActs.ThisCourthaslaiddownin
nouncertaintermsthatinsuchaneventitisthelaterActwhichmustprevail.....
31.Besideswhathasbeendiscussedabove,Section14oftheTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityofIndiaAct,
1997whichcameintothestatutebooksmuchafterboththeTelegraphActandtheConsumerProtection
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

14/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

Act,relevantportionsofwhicharequotedbelow,wouldalsogotoshowtheparliamentaryintentthat
complaintsrelatingtotelecommunicationservicesfiledbyindividualconsumerswouldbemaintainable
beforetheConsumerFora.Italsoclearlyshowsthatsuchdisputesarequitedistinctfromdisputeswitha
telegraphauthorityasenvisagedunderSection7BoftheTelegraphAct.ThisActandtheseprovisionstoo
werenotbroughttothenoticeoftheHonbleSupremeCourtintheKrishnancase.
14.EstablishmentofAppellateTribunal.TheCentralGovernmentshall,bynotification,establishan
AppellateTribunaltobeknownastheTelecomDisputesSettlementandAppellateTribunaltoa
adjudicateanydisputeibetweenalicensorandalicensee.
iibetweentwoormoreserviceproviders.
iiibetweenaserviceproviderandagroupofconsumers.
ProvidedthatnothinginthisclauseshallapplyinrespectofmattersrelatingtoA.......
BthecomplaintofanindividualconsumermaintainablebeforeaconsumerDisputesRedressalforumora
ConsumerDisputesRedressalCommissionortheNationalConsumerRedressalcommissionestablished
undersection9oftheConsumerProtectionAct,198668of1986.
Cdisputebetweentelegraphauthorityandanyotherpersonreferredtoinsubsection1ofsection7Bof
theIndianTelegraphAct188513of1885.
32.Similarly,Regulation25oftheTelecomConsumerProtectionandRedressalofGrievances
Regulations,2007framedundertheTRAIAct,1997whichisreproducedbelowalsoreinforcestheviewthat
aconsumeroftelecommunicationserviceshastherighttoseekredressalofhisgrievancesbefore
ConsumerFora.
25.RightofconsumerstoseekredressalundertheConsumerProtectionAct,1986oranyotherlawforthe
timebeinginforce..
Theprovisionsoftheseregulationsareinadditiontoanyrightconferredupontheconsumersunderthe
ConsumerProtectionAct,198668of1986oranyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce.
2Anyconsumermay,atanytime,.
aduringpendencyofredressalofhisgrievance,whetherbyfilingofcomplaintorappeal,underthese
regulations.orbbeforeorafterfilingofcomplaintorappeal,undertheseregulations,exercisehisright
conferreduponhimundertheConsumerProtectionAct,198668of1986oranyotherlawforthetimebeing
inforceandseekredressalofhisgrievanceunderthatActorlaw.
33.Theinevitableconclusionthatcanthereforenowbesafelydrawnfromourdiscussionsandcitations
aboveisthat,despitetheprovisionsofSection7BoftheTelegraphAct,ConsumerForahavejurisdiction
overcomplaintsrelatingtotelegraph.telecomservicesavailedbyconsumersfromserviceproviders.
licenseessuchastheAppellantBSNL.
34.Legalaspectsapart,onehasalsototakearealisticviewoftheentirematter.In1882,lessthanfive
yearsaftertheinventionofthetelephonebyAlexanderGrahamBell,telephoneservicesbeganonasmall
scaleinIndiawiththecommissioningofa50linemanualtelephoneexchangeinKolkata.TheTelegraphAct
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

15/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

wasenactedshortlythereafterin1885.Evenatthetimeofourindependencein1947,Indiahadhardly
about82,000telephoneconnections.Hence,theprovisionsofSection7Bwhich,incidentally,wasnot
originallyapartofthestatutebookbutwasaddedlaterintheyear1957canbeconsideredtoberelevant
andpracticalatthatpointoftime.However,today,thenumberoftelephoneconnectionsintheentire
countryhasincreasedstaggeringlybeyondimagination.TheAnnualReportoftheDepartmentof
Telecommunications,MinistryofCommunicationsandInformationTechnology,Govt.ofIndiaauthentically
revealsthat,ason1.1.2013,thenumberofWirelessCellularphonesinIndiawas86,47,20,917andthatof
Wirelinephones3,07,86,709,totalling89,55,07,626i.e.almost90croresandthisnumbercontinuesto
increaseeverysingleday.Thoughcomplaintsanddisputes,especiallywithregardtobilling,areaplenty,
evenifweconservativelyestimatethat1subscriberoutof10,000hasagrievancewithaserviceprovider
duringayear,thenumberofcomplaintsrequiredtoberedressedwouldworkouttobe90,000inthe
telecomsectoraloneIfSection7BoftheTelegraphAct,1885weretobestrictlyfollowedandapplied,isit
conceivablethattheCentralGovernmentwouldmakearrangementsfor90,000individualarbitrationstobe
conductedeveryyeartosettlethesemanydisputes,withouthavinganyexistingmachineryforthepurpose
Besidescausinglongdelays,wouldnotsettlementoftheconsumercomplaintsbereducedtoanythingbut
anillusion
35.Inthisregard,beforeweconclude,itwouldalsobepertinenttopointoutherethatajudgmentofthe
HonbleGauhatiHighCourtvizSantokhSinghvsDivisionalEngineer,Telephones,ShillongreportedinAIR
1990Gau47bringstolightCircularNo.13.324.Arb.88.TRdatedasfarbackas13.04.1989issuedbythe
Dept.ofTelecommunications,Govt.ofIndiainrespectofSection7BoftheTelegraphAct,therelevantpart
ofwhichreadsasfollows.
AccordingtoSection7BofIndianTelegraphAct,ifanydisputeconcerninganytelegraphline,etc.arises
betweentheTelegraphauthoritiesandthesubscriber,thedisputeshallbereferredtoarbitratorsappointed
bytheCentralGovernment.Theawardofthearbitratorsshallbeconclusive,andshallnotbequestionedin
anyCourt.
2.AccordingtotheaboveAct,ifanybodyapproachesthedepartmenttoappointanarbitrator,wearebound
todoso,butweareawarethatifineverycaseofdisputebysubscribers,anarbitratorisappointed,the
workloadwillincreasetremendously,andcaseswillincreasetonumberswhereitwillbedifficulttofinda
sufficientnumberofofficersforappointingasarbitrators.Tocontroltheoverflowofsuchcases,the
Departmenthasdecided,asamatterofpolicy,thatarbitratorswillbeappointedonlyinsuchcaseswhere
thesubscriberapproachestheCourtwitharequesttoappointanarbitrator,andtheCourtordersforthe
same.
Whatisclearfromtheseinstructionsisthat,ontheonehand,theGovernmentofIndia,realisingthe
impracticabilityofimplementingthearbitrationprocedurelaiddowninSection7BoftheTelegraphActhas,
forallpracticalpurposes,issuedinstructionstoavoidarbitration.Ontheotherhand,BSNL,itselfaPublic
SectorCompany,bychallengingthemaintainabilityoftheconsumercomplaints,wantstoavoidthe
ConsumerFora.Inthesecircumstancestheplightofaggrievedconsumersissadlythatoftomatoesina
sandwich,beingleftwithpracticallynoplacetogowiththeirgrievances.ifthisdichotomyweretobeleft
unresolved,all90crorelandlineandcellularphoneconsumersofourcountrywould,forallpractical
purposes,continuetoremainremediless,despitetheloudexhortationsofJagoGrahakJago.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

16/17

8/17/2016

BsnlvsSmtiBettySebastianon25February,2014

36.Bethatasitmay,inconclusion,asaresultofourdiscussionsandfindingsabove,wehaveno
hesitationinholdinginallthenineappealsbeforeusthatthelearnedDistrictForumsrightlyentertainedthe
complaintpetitionsfiledbeforethembytheRespondentshereinandexercisedtheirjurisdictionoverthesaid
complaintsquitelegally.TheupshotisthattherespectiveimpugnedorderspassedbythelearnedDistrict
Forumsareupheldinsofarasthispreliminaryissueisconcerned.Alltheappealsshallnowbepostedfor
hearingonmerits.Fix28.02.2014forhearing.Registryshallfurnishfreecopiesofthisordertothe
AppellantsandtoeachoftheRespondents.CopiesshallalsobesenttoalllearnedDistrictForumsin
Meghalayafortheirguidanceandrecords.Besides,forthebenefitofthelayconsumersthroughoutthe
StateofMeghalayawhomaynotnecessarilyfathomthelegaljargon,wemakeitclearthattheyarefully
entitledtoapproachtheConsumerForaoftheStatetoseekredressalofanydisputesandgrievancesthat
theymayhaveinrelationtotheirlandlines,cellphones,internetconnectionsetc.,withBSNLandother
similarserviceproviders.[HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPKMusahary]PRESIDENT[HON'BLEMR.Ramesh
Bawri]MEMBER

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61879422/

17/17