31.03.2015
JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
This Revision Petition arises out of the Order, dated 11.08.2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, in case No. CDF/Unit-II,CC No. 223 of 2014, whereby the maintainability petition filed by the OP against the original complaint was rejected on contest against OP No.1 with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
In his complaint, filed before the Ld. Forum below, the Complainant referred to the unsatisfactory performance of a Data Card purchased from the shop of the OPs located at TVS COCO Chowringhee, 46 C , Chowringhee Road, Kolkata 700 071 , on payment of a sum of Rs.1199/- and claim for refund of the price of the Data Card.The Complainant also prayed for direction upon the OP for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, loss of income in the legal profession, deficiency in service of the OP , mental agony and physical discomfort etc. The complaint has been admitted by the Ld. Forum below by its order dated 16.06.2014 . Upon service of the copy of notice along with copy of the complaint, the OPs filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the subject of complaint must be referred to arbitrator for disposal, as the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try such complaint.
Ld. Forum below heard both sides on 25.07.2014 and 11.08.2014 . Order was passed holding that as per Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India 1997, a consumer dispute is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or National Commission. Ld. Forum also observed that the OP was a private company and the complaint was not between the individual Complainant and the Telegraph Authority. The Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India 1997 being a special Act, was applicable in the complaint case. Accordingly, Ld. Forum below rejected the petition of the OPs challenging the maintainability of the complaint with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid by the OP No.1 to the Complainant.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the Revisionists have come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try any dispute in relation to any telecommunication service as such services are governed by the Indian Telegraph Act and as per the Act any billing dispute and / or any dispute relating to telephone matter is to be settled only through arbitration proceeding as per Section 7B of the Act . The present order of the District Forum is not lawful and further, the cost of Rs. 3,000/- as imposed by the Ld. Forum below is irregular and does not conform to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act . The order should be set aside.
OP herein appearing in person submitted that under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India, 1997, a consumer dispute relating to telephone service is maintainable. In support of his argument, Ld. Advocate cited the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- in Revision Petition No.1228 of 2013 holding that the powers of a telegraph authority are not vested in the private telecom service providers and that being so, Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act will have no application . It was further held that the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telephone consumers and telecom service provider who are not under the category of Telegraph Authority, as clarified by the Govt of India, Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Telecommunications vide their letter dated 24th January , 2014 addressed to the Secretary , Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt of India . Hence, the order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has been rightly passed.
Having heard both parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, we find that the Revisionists have brought up the revision petition against an order which has the support of legal provisions as made under the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India. There is no reason to believe or no material on record establishing that the OP/Revisionist service provider is a telegraph authority. Accordingly, we are not convinced that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error except for the fact that asking the asking the OPs/ Revisionist herein to pay cost of Rs. 3,000/- for filing an objection challenging the maintainability of the complaint lying before the Ld. Forum below is not justified with any reason. Viewed as such, we are inclined to hold that the impugned order should be modified. Hence,
Ordered
that the Revision Petition be allowed in part towards striking off the payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/-, while the other part of the impugned order shall remain unchanged implying that the complaint lying before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. There shall be no order as to costs.
