This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 2-9-2008 in the presence of  Sri. B.H.Kishore Kumar,Advocate for Complainant,  and  of  Sri.B.Pratap Rao and V.Narendra Swaroop, Advocates for the opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri. K.V.Kaladhar, Member )

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an Un-employee  and running Cable Connection in Kaikondaigudem (v)  and having  300 connections in the village running since last 6 years.

3.         That in the year 2005 the opposite party No-1 have declared that as pay channel and which ever telecasting Eenadu Television have to take decoders from opposite party No-1.  Accordingly the complainant paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- for getting decoders from opposite party No-1 on 30-8-2005 through D.D.vide No.444857 Andhra Bank, Bus stand complex, Khammam and the same is handed over to the opposite party No-1 and the complainant received a letter, dated 16-1-2006 about the allotment of decoders to the complainant herein vide D.C.No.3082 and on the enquiry made by the complainant for sending decoders chips again the opposite party No-1 demanded for payment of Rs.2,250/- and the same was paid by the complainant on 16-2-2006 vide D.C.No.655234, Andhra Bank Bus station Complex, Khammam. 

4.         The opposite parties had also asked Postal Agency Certificate for issuing of the chip cards to the decoders.  Upon which the complainant had submitted Form No.3 i.e., Registration Certificate to the opposite party No-2.  The opposite parties had also asked the complainant  a certificate from Sarpanch Grampanchayat, Kaikondaigudem for proof to say that the complainant running cable connection.  The complainant also submitted the certificate issued by Surpanch, Kaikondaigudem.  Even after complying all the requirements demanded by the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not choose to release chip cards for decoding the decoders, due to which the complainant business i.e., domestic cable connection numbers decreased from 300 to 150 connections due to which the complainant herein sustained loss of Rs.10,000/- per month due to  deficiency of service done by the opposite parties in total the complainant sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- due to the acts  of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages caused to the complainant

5.         The complainant filed affidavit along with the following documents.

Ex A1: Xerox copy of D.D. in favour of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd for Rs.11,000/-, dated 30-8-2005 .  Ex A2: Another Xerox copy of D.D. in favour of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd for Rs.2,250/-, dated16-2-2006.  Ex A3:Tele channel of opposite parties to the complainant, dated 16-1-2006 Ex A4: Registration certificate demanded by post master(HSG-I) Khammam  issued a certificate to Nageti Srinivasa Rao of Kaikondaigudem(v)Ex A5: Xerox copy of certificate issued by Surpanch, Kaikondaigudem infavour of complainant, dated 7-2-2006 Ex A6: Xerox copy of communication report.

6.         Opposite parties filed the following counter:

1.         opposite party submits that M/s.Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited (TV Division) is a company incorporated  under companies Act, 1956.  There were 12 channels owned and operated by M/s. Ushodaya Enterprise Private Limited, and are collectively known as ETV network in common parlance and a Broadcaster under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

 7.        The above complaint itself is not maintainable  before this Honorable District Forum that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted  to regulatery telecommunication services, telecom disputes settlements and appellate tribunal (TDSAT) is established under section 14 of the act to adjudicate, disputes, dispose of Appeals and to promote the interests of the service providers and consumers of the telecom sectors to provide and ensured yearly growth of telecom sector and for matters connected therewith.  The telecom disputes settlements and appellate tribunal is  empowered to adjudicate upon any dispute (I)between  a licensor and licence  (II)between  two or more service providers (III) between  a service provider and a group of consumers.  The complaint of an individual consumer is however exempted from the jurisdiction of TDSAT as such the present   complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble District Consumer Forum.

8.         It is submitted that under section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Telecommunication of inter connection regulations 2004 had been made, to cover arrangements among service providers for inter connection and revenue share.  These regulations further regulate the relationship between the broadcaster’s service providers.

9.         By virtue  of section 14   of the Telecom Authority of India Act, 1997.   The present dispute is not maintainable before this Forum and therefore liable to be dismissed.  As per section 15 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India of Act : No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this  Act to determine  shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.  The Act that the complainant affidavits is admittedly commercial, doing business by supplying the  encrypted signals of the broadcaster to his viewers collecting monthly subsuition from them.  The complainant is a cable operator as such he is not consumer and cannot seek protection under C.P.Act, 1986.

10.      Hence the compliant may be dismissed.

11.      The opposite parties field written arguments reiterate the same facts in their counter.  The complainant did not file any written arguments.

12.      Whether this complaint is maintainable under C.P.Act.  Whether this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

13.      Whether these transactions is a commercial nature ?

ISSUE NO-1 to 3:

            It is the contention of the complainant that he is running Cable Connection in Kaikodaigudem (v) had 300 connections since last 6 years.   In the year 2005 the opposite party No-1 have declared  that is pay channel and  who ever telecasting the Eenadu TV have to take decoder from opposite party No-1.  Accordingly the complainant pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- for getting decoder from opposite party No-1 on 30-8-2005.  To that effect he received a letter on 16-1-2006 allotment of decoder to the complainant.  The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.2,250/- for sending the decoder chips to the complainant.  After receiving the above said amount the opposite parties did not send the decoder chips to the complainant.  Due to this the complainant cable  connections came down from 300 to 150 connections, due to which the complainant loss of Rs.10,000/- per month, in total the complainant loss Rs.2,00,000/-.

            For which the contention of the opposite parties is that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as this dispute related to  Telecom Regulatory  Authority of India Act, 1987  this act was enacted to regulate Telecommunication Services, for Telecom disputes settlement the appellate tribunal is established.  Under section-14 of the Act, to adjudicate, disputes, and dispose of appeals and to protect the interest of the service providers and consumer of the telecom sectors and promote and ensure orderly growth of Telecom sectors and for matters connected therewith.

            The opposite parties had also field a notification issued by telecom Regulatory Authority  of India, New Delhi.

            We have gone through those notification and as per session 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, this dispute related to Telecom disputes settlement and appellate tribunal.  Admittedly the complainant is doing commercial transactions and he is getting cable fee from the consumers admittedly he is having 300 consumers in that village.

14.      Hence, we are of the opinion that this dispute is related to the Telecom Regulatory  Authority of  India and this dispute to be settled before the Telecom Disputes settlement and appellate tribunal at New Delhi.

15.      Hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this matter.  Accordingly these issues are settled against the complaint and this is clearly a commercial transaction as per the averments of the complaint.  Accordingly this compliant is dismissed, as this Forum has got no jurisdiction over this matter.

            Dictated to the Stenographer,  Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 9th  day of September, 2008.

                                                                   President                      Member                 Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                                        WITNESS EXAMINED FOR      

Complainant                                                                                                       Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                  

      Nil                                                                                                           Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant                                                                                 

Ex A1: Xerox copy of D.D. in favour of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd for Rs.11,000/-, dated 30-8-2005 . 

Ex A2: Another Xerox copy of D.D. in favour of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd for Rs.2,250/-, dated16-2-2006.

 Ex A3:Tele channel of opposite parties to the complainant, dated 16-1-2006

Ex A4: Registration certificate demanded by post master(HSG-I) Khammam  issued a certificate to Nageti Srinivasa Rao of Kaikondaigudem

Ex A5: Xerox copy of certificate issued by Surpanch, Kaikondaigudem infavour of complainant, dated 7-2-2006

 Ex A6: Xerox copy of communication report.

Opposite parties                                                                                                         

ExB1: Notification dated:10-12-2004

            President                           Member                        Member                                           District Consumers Forum, Khammam