TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st 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. 2. 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 5-8-2009, 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. 100/- and two email IDs on the said internet conne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., (1996) 6 SCC 385, wherein it had been held : "14 ............. "It is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri Suri, that the words "in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force" would be given proper meaning and effect and if the complaint is not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on construction and conspectus of the provisions of the Act we think that the contention is not well founded. Parliament is awa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the forums on their own and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case, come to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes would be otherwise those given in the Act."     (emphasis supplied) In para 20, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows : "20. .........Thus, having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986, Act is incorrect and untenable.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;It is, therefore, argued that if a licensee who is granted a licence under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act where ipso facto covered by the expression "telegraph authority", there was no need to introduce a new definition for the term "telegraph authority" in clause (111) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. 10. Learned standing counsel, Mr. Sachin Datta submits, on instructions, that respondent No. 2 does not fall within the definition of "telegraph authority" under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. He, therefore, supports the stand of the petitioner. 11. Mr. Sikri, who appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 Bharti Airtel Ltd., does not dispute the position that respondent No. 2 does not fall within the definition of ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a licensee(s) by virtue of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. However, it has not chosen to fasten the statutory arbitration on the licensee or its consumer under Section 7B. Else, while mentioning the Telegraph Authority, the Legislature could easily have included the "licensee" as one of the parties to an arbitration dispute under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 13. I also find force in the submission of the petitioner founded upon the Amendment to the Income-tax Act whereby the Service Tax provisions were introduced. It clearly shows that even the Parliament did not consider the definition of "Telegraph Authority" contained in Section 3(6) of the Telegraph Act to include a licensee per se. 14. The Supreme Court ha....