MUMBAI: The Supreme Court had recently pulled the plug on telephone subscribers across the country and disconnected their link to consumer courts for solutions against inflated bills or faulty lines. Worried that the judgment would render millions of telephone users with no access to quick and cheap justice, consumer activists are in a tizzy and in the process of seeking a review of the apex court judgment. It could well render consumer courts empty as other services and industries may claim immunity too, they fear.

Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) said it would soon move the apex court against the two-judge-bench ruling that has barred people from knocking on consumer courts with complaints of disconnected lines or disproportionate bills.

The SC had held that the remedy for consumers was in the special provisions of the 124-year-old Indian Telegraph Act under which such disputes could be settled by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Central government.

MGP chairperson Shirish Deshpande said, "The judgment delivered by the two-judge SC bench is erroneous as it has not considered its own earlier judgments including one passed by a larger three-judge bench upholding the jurisdiction of consumer courts in a similar situation where special laws also exist appear to have been ignored in this judgement." He said unless the current judgment is stayed, it may cause much harm not only to telephone users as it may apply even to mobile phone subcribers, but builders may also seek immunity from consumer court cases by citing arbitral clauses or the existence of special flat ownership laws.

Last month, the SC set aside a 2003 full bench judgment of the Kerala high court that upheld a 2001 consumer court order directing a state telecom company to compensate a subscriber whose line was disconnected for non-payment of bill. The consumer had not turned up for the hearing.

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly ruled that since the Indian Telegraph Act specially provides for the appointment of an arbitrator by the Central government for disputes over bills and other complaints, "the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred". The special law would prevail over a general law, the SC held, while deciding an appeal filed by Telecom department Calicut against the HC verdict.

The consumer forum at Kozhikode had directed the PSU to re-connect the line of subscriber M Krishnan and pay Rs 5,000 as damages with 12% interest per year since the disconnection date. The telecom company did not wish to shell out any compensation and approaced the HC where a single judge dismissed its petition. The company took the fight higher and went to a two-judge bench which considering the issue seriousness referred the matter to a larger bench. Here too, the telecom company met with no success. Thats when in 2004, the PSU dragged its subscriber to the supreme court.

The SC srutinised the laws closely and found that the Telegraph Act stipulates that any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the authority and the consumer shall be determined by arbitration. The arbitrator finding would be final and not challengable in any court.

But Deshpande said the Consumer Protection Act states it can be relied upon in addition to any other remedy. Hence consumer protection law allows consumer courts to deal with complaints for which there is an alternate remedy. But only one of the two can be used.

Consumer activist Jehangir Gai said the SC verdict "is incorrect since it hasnt considered its own precedent" and will have grave implications. He has advised the Bombay Telephone Users Association to move the SC for a review.