CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1993) 03 NCDRC CK 0069

D.V.SATYANARAYANA vs GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD TELECOM DISTRICT

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 18 March 1993 · Citation: 1993 2 CPJ 928

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Venkatarami Reddy , Pothuri Venkateswara Rao , J.Ananda Lakshmi J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 374 words
1.

THE complainant in C.D. No. 161/92 on the file of the District Forum, Hyderabad is the appellant in this appeal. THE complainant is a subscriber of telephone No. 864405. He received two bills dated 11.9.88 and 11.3.1989 for Rs. 13,605/- and Rs. 26,257/- respectively. According to the complainant his average bills never exceeded the range of Rs. 500/- to 1400/- and that, therefore these bills were wrong. THE complainant approached the opposite party claiming relief and the opposite party granted rebate in respect of first bill and did not grant rebate in respect of second bill. THEn the complainant approached the High Court of A.P. by way of writ petition.

2.

THE High Court referred the complaint to Arbitrator. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Arbitrator went into the correctness or otherwise of the bills and gave further rebate of the first bill and also some rebate with regard to the second bill. Being not satisfied with that the complainant filed the above Consumer Dispute in the District Forum. Both the Counsel were heard and counter was filed stating that the matter was decided by the Arbitrator and that the award of the arbitrator is conclusive and final and the District Court cannot entertain the complaint once again under Section 7B(ii) of the Indian Telephone Act, 1885.

Having heard both the Counsels, the District Forum held that pursuant to the directions (if the High Court the complainant had already a veiled the remedy of arbitration and has got relief from the arbitrator. Since he was a veiled alternative remedy of arbitration as provided under the Act the District Forum cannot intervene in the matter.

3.

IN this appeal it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum has not gone into merits of the complaint and merely dismissed the complaint. We were not inclined to agree with the a foresaid contention. Since the dispute was decided by an Arbitrator under Section 7B(ii) of the INdian Telegraph Act the Award of the arbitrator is final and the District Forum held that the complaint is not maintainable. It is not necessary to go into the merits of this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.