IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 11.8.2014
First Appeal – 1079/2013
| P.A.S. Rao. Advocate Flat No.302, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-500 027 | .........Appellant |
VS
| M/s Reliance Infocomm serices, A-231, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 M/s Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance House, Near Mardia Plaza, Off. C.G.Road, Ahmadabad-3800 006(Gujarat M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd., A-231, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 Proprietor M/s Gift Corner, 16A, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065 | ………...Respondents |
CORAM
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Salma Noor (Member)
1. Heard Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage.
2. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.63 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 27.8.2013 of District Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi P.A.S. Rao vs M/s Reliance Infocomm serices & Ors. whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
3. Briefly stated the complainant/appellant has filed a complaint bearing No.63/2007 titled as P.A.S. Rao vs M/s Reliance Infocomm serices & Ors. To claim the compensation and damages along with litigation expenses with the allegation that the complainant on the basis of the representations of the OP/respondent opted “Swift 40” plan and paid Rs.1800/- on 17.4.2006 and again Rs.550/- on 22.4.2006, but could not make the internet work and through no internet services were provided by the respondent for the period from 17.4.2006 to 24.4.2006, on account of which he filed a complaint before the District Forum as herein above.
4. The OP/respondent filed the written version and took a preliminary objection that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1.9.2009 passed in Civil Appeal titled as General manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & anr (Civil appeal No.7687 of 2004) specifically laid down that in the Consumer Forum such complaints are not maintainable and only remedy available to such complaints to seek redress u/s 7 (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It was further laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that such complaints are barred under Consumer Protection Act., 1986. Hon’ble National commission in Prakash Verma vs. Idea Celluar Limited (a private service provider) & Anr. In 1705 of 2014 has also laid down the same law as pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.
5. The Ops are very submitted that the OPs are the private service providers, therefore, they are not covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. The contention is devoid of all force for the reason that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has not made any definition with regard to such companies and specifically laid down that any dispute with regard to the telecommunication is not covered within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and such dispute may be taken u/s 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
6. Under these circumstances we are in complete agreement that the findings recorded by the District Forum in this connection. Therefore this appeal has no force and dismissed at the admission stage.
7. A copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(Salma Noor)
Presiding Member
(N P Kaushik)
Member (Judicial)
