Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by  complainant     is directed against the  order dated 11.6.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  whereby   his   complaint bearing  No.1320  of 2008  was dismissed being merit less. 

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

             The Complainant on 11.9.2008 got three connections (Popular Pack) of Big TV installed at his residence by paying Rs.7970/- vide Annexure C-1. It was alleged that at the time of installation, wrong pack had been activated, which fact was pointed out to the authorized representative, upon which he assured that the connection would be verified and Popular Pack for a period of 12 months would be activated within two days, but OPs did nothing. The Complainant lodged various complaints with the customer care and every time he was given false assurance of redressal of his grievance in 48 hrs. During the intervening period, when the other two smart cards also stopped working and he wrote e-mails to the Ops but  nothing was done. Hence, alleging deficiency in service   and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.         On the other hand, the case of Opposite parties before the District Forum was that the   Complainant opted for Premium Pack for 6 months which was evident from the Customer Application Form (CAF) where in Column 7, he had opted for the code of Premium Pack for 6 months. It was denied that wrong plan was activated and a request was made to activate correct plan at the time of installation.  No assurances of activation of Popular Pack for 12 months was given to the complainant.   It was also pleaded that the Complainant had mentioned wrong Smart Card Number (SCN) in his interactions with the OPs due to which interactions could not become fruitful.   After checking his CAF, it was found that correct plan had been activated as mentioned in CAF, thus, there was no fault on the part of the OPs. It was submitted that Popular Pack for 12 months was activated in all the three numbers of the Complainant on 1.10.2008, 18.10.2008 and 9.12.2008   and as a goodwill gesture the OP did not charge anything from the Complainant against his usage of Premium pack till activation of Popular Pack for 12 months.  

  5.        The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that  the complainant himself had opted for premium pack of 6 months and not for popular pack of 12 months, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such the complaint was dismissed being without any merit. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 

6.            We have heard  the  appellant/complainant   and gone through the file carefully.  The only noticeable point of arguments raised  by the  complainant is that  in the application form the codes regarding the pack were filled in by the representative of the Ops and not by him , however, he had specifically told the representative of Ops to fill the code of 12 months popular pack. He contended that a number of complaints were given to Ops for rectification of the mistake and also for rectification of the anomalies in the connection but it failed to do the needful. However, this point of arguments has been repelled by the learned counsel for OP. He further stated  that even otherwise  such matters against telecommunication services are not maintainable in view of judgment of  State Consumer Commission, Chennai   dated 30.11.2009  which has been rendered  in FA No.460 of 2004 and  similar other appeals by following the judgment of hon’ble Supreme court in General Manager,Telecome Vs M.Krishnan & another.    To this, complainant submitted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act can be invoked irrespective of any other statute dealing with the same matter as remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional and special remedy because as per provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,1997, the provisions of the CPA prevail upon the other provisions/enactments relating to telecommunication. He also referred to a decision of District Forum, Forezepur wherein such a view has been taken. 

7.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and find  that according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnana & another (in civil appeal No.7687 of 2004) decided on 1.9.2009 there is implied bar to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act  in view of Section-7B of the  Indian Telegraph Act. A bare perusal of the definition of ‘telegraph’ in Indian Telegraph Act makes it clear that  the television services which are based on emission and reception of audiovisuals also fall under this. According to  Section 3(1-AA) of Indian  Telegraph Act “telegraph” means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, image, and sound or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electromagnetic emission, radio waves or hertz Ian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means’’.   

8.         Thus, taking into consideration all the given facts and circumstances of the case  , we are of the considered opinion  that  as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court  in the    General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and anr. (supra),  the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters. So, this appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate forum/court in accordance with law. It is made clear that the period taken in pursing this matter may not be taken into consideration by the appropriate forum, if so approached by the complainant.  

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.