Delhi

StateCommission

FA/527/2013

RAVINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Argument: 07.12.2015

Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

 

First Appeal-527/2013

 

        In the Matter of:

                Ravinder Kumar

        Shree Laptop Solutions

        502, Shakuntala Apartment-59

        Nehru Place

        New Delhi-19

……Appellant     Versus   Bharti Airtel Ltd. H-5/12, Qutub Ambience Mehrauli Road, New Delhi                                                           …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             The present appeal challenges order dated 20.03.2013 passed by CDRF-II in complaint case no. 564/08. The complaint has been dismissed on the basis of application moved by OP on the ground that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 90 the complaint was not maintainable in consumer forum.

2.             The complainant/appellant relied upon another decision of High Court of Delhi in J.K. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR (2012) Delhi 94.

3.             After going through citations relied by both the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

4.             We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The respondent did not turn up to respond to the appeal despite service for 07.05.2014 by registered AD. The respondent did not appear on subsequent dates namely 24.09.2014, 17.04.2015 also.

5.             The preposition of law whether jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is barred due to section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act providing for arbitration, stands concluded by recent decision of National Commission in revision petition no. 865/13 titled as Reliance Communications Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Beena Menon decided on 19.11.2014 SCC Online NCDRC 798. The judgment relied upon by the District Forum has been considered in the said judgment and it has been ruled that the OPs do not come under the definition of ‘Telegraph Authority’ within the meaning of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

6.             The National Commission relied upon decision of Supreme Court in Fear Air Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 in which it was held that District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are judicial authorities, for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in view of the object of the Aact and by operation of section 3 thereof, it would be appropriate that these forums created under the Consumer Protection Act and are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act instead of relegating the parties to arbitration proceedings. The reason is that Consumer Protection Act intends to relieve the Consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the forums of their own and on the peculiar facts and circumstances, come to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes would otherwise than those in the Consumer Protection Act.

7.             Further, the National Commission relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman Employees State Insurance (2007) 4 SCC 579 and it was observed that said decision is by a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that jurisdiction of consumer forum has to be construed liberally to bring many case under it for their speedy disposal. Reference was also made to decision of Supreme Court in String Meadows Hospital Vs. Harjol Alvalia AIR 1998 SC 1801 where it was held that Consumer Protection Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of ordinary court system.  

8.             In view of the above decision the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the matter on merits.

                Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as well as to District Forum.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)