JK MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to assail the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the State Commission constituted under Section 9(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Case No. FA-10/313, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum and held that the complaint preferred by the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The petitioner filed a consumer case against the respondent no. 2, Bharti Airtel Limited and one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, Territory Sales Manager, Bharti Airtel Services Limited before the District Forum, raising grievances with regard to provision of services by them. According to the petitioner, on 05.08.2009, the petitioner had purchased a broad band plan called Home 649, whereunder respondent no. 2 had agreed to provide usage of broad band connection with a landline connection with free calls worth Rs. 00/- and two email IDs on the said internet connection with configuration of the outlook express software.

(2.) Since disputes arose in regard to the provision of the said services, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum). On 15.03.2010, the District Forum dismissed the petitioner's complaint on the ground that the Forum does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which has also dismissed the petitioners appeal by placing reliance on Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

(3.) The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. He, therefore, submits that even if it were to be assumed that the remedy under Section 7B by way of a statutory arbitration were available to the petitioner, the same would not bar the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, as the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy.