BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/575 of 21.7.2010 

Sandeep Choudhry resident of House No.J6/1,Gobind Colony, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala(Punjab)

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 General Manager Reliance Communication Ltd. Office:H-Block,Ist Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710.

2.                 Sanjey Bhateja, Proprietor of Goobal Infocom, Shop No.2334,Sharma Complex,Arya Samaj Road, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District,Patiala.

3.                 Gursewak Singh, Reliance Communication Ltd.,SCO 10-11,First Floor, Chotti Baradari, Patiala, Punjab.

4.                 Parveen Kumar FSD Global Infocom,Shop No.2334,Sharma Complex,Arya Samaj Road, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala,Punjab.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Application for dismissal of the complaint

                                      moved by opposite party no.1.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:        Sh.S.K.Bawa , Advocate

For opposite parties:        Sh.T.S.Dulak, Advocate

No.1&3

For opposite parties:        Sh.Pawan Kumar, Advocate

No.2&4

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                                      This is to dispose off the application moved by op no.1 so as to dismiss the complaint in the light of the citation Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 General Manager, Telecom Versus M.Krishnan & Anr. decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 26.11.2001 that the Consumer Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between a service provider and its subscriber. Reference is made to the citation Prakash Verma versus Idea Cellular Ltd.& Anr.  Revision petition no. 1703 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,NewDelhi for the observation that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr.(2009)8 SCC 481 is binding on all the subordinate courts.

2.                                   The application is contested by the complainant vide the reply filed in this regard.

3.                                   We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the record on the file.

4.                                   The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab,Chandigarh, in the case of citation Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Gurinder Kaur and another 2010 CTJ 688(SCDRC) made a critical examination of the provisions contained under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. It was observed by the Hon’ble State Commission that Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 is applicable, if a dispute arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus was or was being provided. The Hon’ble State Commission also discussed about the “Telegraph Authority” as provided under Section 3(6) of the Telegraph Act,1885. Then it was observed by the Hon’ble State Commission that the question arises as to whether the private service providers are the Telegraph authority within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 or in other words are they the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs or they are the officers empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. Ultimately, having taken note of the citation M.Krishnana & Anr.(Supra) held that the Private Service Providers are not covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Krishnan and another’s case(supra) and the consumers/customers have the right to challenge the actions of the service providers by filing complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.Therefore, we find no hesitation in dismissing the application. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced.

Dated:27.4.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President