Summary
A mobile subscriber challenged an allegedly excessive bill before the consumer forum. The service provider argued that statutory arbitration under the Telegraph Act excluded that forum. The Court held that telecom services were covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the arbitral remedy did not displace the additional consumer remedy. It affirmed jurisdiction in the principal appeal and restored two connected complaints, without deciding the underlying service disputes.
Issues
- Whether statutory arbitration under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act excludes consumer jurisdiction over telecom service disputes.
- Whether telecom services fell within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before their express inclusion in the 2019 Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(o), 3 and 11(1), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The broad definition of service and the additional nature of the consumer remedy supported jurisdiction over telecom complaints. (¶¶ 6-9, 13-20)
- Section 7B, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885The statutory arbitration remedy did not oust consumer jurisdiction. (¶¶ 11-12, 16-20)
- Section 2(42), Consumer Protection Act, 2019Express inclusion of telecom services did not imply their exclusion under the earlier Act. (¶¶ 13-14, 20)
Held
- The inclusive list in Section 2(o) of the 1986 Act was illustrative. Its broad opening words encompassed telecom services, subject to the specified exclusions for gratuitous services and contracts of personal service. (¶¶ 7-9, 13-14, 20)
- Consumer protection legislation is itself special legislation. Section 3 preserves an additional remedy; the statutory character of Telegraph Act arbitration does not by itself establish an express or necessarily implied exclusion of consumer jurisdiction. (¶ 15-19)
- The Court rejected M. Krishnan’s contrary jurisdictional view for failing to recognise the special character of the 1986 Act and its additional-remedy provision. A consumer could elect the consumer remedy instead of arbitration. (¶ 17-20)
- The principal appeal was dismissed and the NCDRC determination sustaining jurisdiction affirmed. In the two connected appeals, the contrary NCDRC orders were set aside and the complaints restored to their respective District Forums. These directions did not determine deficiency or compensation on the merits. (¶¶ 21-23, Connected appeals: 1-3)
Result
Principal appeal dismissed; consumer jurisdiction affirmed. Connected appeals allowed, contrary NCDRC orders set aside and the two consumer complaints restored for determination.