GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMversusM. KRISHNAN & ANR.

                   [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 KATJU 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
  implication is barred - Servicf]s relating to telephone are
E subject to Telegraph Rules - A telephone can be
  disconnected for default in payment under r. 443 - Special
                                                                     f
  law overrides the general law. - High Court was not correct in
  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 PELLATE 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-
               connect the telephone connection to the respondent No. 1 and F
"
               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.

         6. In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided
8
    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
         person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus           "
D
         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
E
         determination of disputes under this Section.
                                                                            "1
         (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."
F
    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 ~3 of the Rules.
G        7. 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.

       8. In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs.
H   Consumer Protection Council ( 1995) 2 SCC 479 it was held
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN & 89
                  ANR.

that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate A
upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles
accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid
judgment.

    9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the
                                                                   8
impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the
order of the District Consumer Forum dated 26.11 s.2001.

       10. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.      c




          I:

               .....