G.M. Dept. of Telecommunications vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—Ext. P3 was under challenge at the instance of the appellant, in O.P. 32270/99, but failed. Therefore this writ appeal Ext. P3 was a preliminary order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum deciding a preliminary question as to the maintainability of the petition filed against the appellants. General Manager and others of the Telephone service. There was delay in granting phone connection to the second respondent, according to him. He approached the first respondent. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was before that forum the appellant raised a question of maintainability. It was found in Ext. P3 that the petition filed by the second respondent against the appellant was maintainable. This is challenged contending that there is a remedy under Sec. 7-B of the telegraph Act. for Arbitration. Therefore remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. 1996 was not available to (he second respondent. A reading of Sec. 7-B indicates that arbitration is available in any dispute concerning telephone appliance or apparatus. Here the dispute raised is with regard to overlooking of priority for which Arbitration under Sec. 7-B is not available. In such circumstances District Forum, first respondent is perfectly justified in holding that the petition filed by the second respondent was maintainable.

With Appeal fails and is dismissed.