Delhi

StateCommission

A/62/2015

RITU VOHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of argument:  10.08.2016

Date of Order: 22.08.2016

First Appeal No.62/15

In the matter of:

Mrs. Ritu Vohra,

D/o. Somnath Vohra,

Plot No.23, 1^st Floor,

Pratap Nagar Near Hari Nagar Depot,

New Delhi-110064..                                                      ………….Appellant

         

Versus

 

M/s. Bharti Airtel,

Bharti Crescent

12, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase-II

New Delhi-110070.                                                                    ….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes        

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The complainant has come in appeal against order dated 16.1.15 passed by District Forum – VII in complaint case no.865/14 in vide which the complaint was dismissed on the ground that consumer court has no jurisdiction in the matter. In doing so the district forum relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom V/s. N. Krishnan 2009 (8) SCC 481.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the said case was not fully argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was not brought to the notice of Hon’ble Supreme Court that service provider is not a telegraph authority within the meaning of section 7(B) telegraph act. It was also submitted that subsequently the government of India issued O.M. dated 4.2.14 which is accompanied by clarification  from Director (P&RV). The same provides that powers of telegraph Authority has neither be envested nor power of telegraph authority are available to private telecom service providers. Therefore recourse of section 7 (B) in case of disputes between consumer and service providers would not be available., Hence District Consumer Forum are competent deal with the disputes between Indian telecom consumers and telecom service providers .

The counsel for the respondent refuted the contention of the appellant by submitting that subsequent to aforesaid OM, the petitioner i.e. General Manager Telecom, BSNL moved review petition  (C)795/15 in case relied upon by the district forum. The same was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.15 on the ground of delay of 5 years and 111 days as well as on merits.   Moreover the government of India issued another circular dated 7.7.14 copy of which is annexure 4 of the reply which  states that observations by the supreme court can  be modified by Supreme Court only. It cannot be modified through an executive order.

 

The counsel for respondent also relied upon the decision of the National Commission in revision petition no.2943/12 titled as H.R. Dhiman V/s. Idea Cellular Company Ltd. decided on 9.10.12, decision of National Commission in appeal no.862/11 titled as Lokesh Prashar V/s. Idea Cellular Limited decided on 20.4.12.

Any how this issue was raised before High Court of Delhi in writ petition (Civil) 8285/2010 titled as J.K. Mittal V/s. Union of India decided on 6.2.12. In the said case the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishana Supra  was noticed and it was held that licensee is not telegraph authority under section 7(B) telegraph Act and consumer court has jurisdiction. Similar view was taken by National Commission in revision petition no.865/13 titled as Reliance Communications Ltd V/s. Beena Menon decided on 19.11.14 SCC online NCDRC 798. In this case also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishnan Supra was noticed.

Scope of review is very limited and thus dismissal of review petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not have the fact of reassertion of law on the point. Unless a fresh matter reaches the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is held that consumer court has not jurisdiction against service provider, decision of High Court of Delhi in J.K. Mittal Supra and decision of National Commission in Reliance Communication  V/s. Beena Menon Supra  should prevail.

For the foregoing reason the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the district forum for decisions on merits. Parties are directed to appear before district forum on 26.9.16.

Copy of this order be sent to district forum for information. Copy of order be sent to both the parties free of cost. 

 

 

                                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)