BEFORE THE HYDERABAD

F.A.No.432 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.171 OF 2006 DISTRICT FORUM-I,VISAKHAPATNAM

Between:

1. Opp.SampatVinayakTemple
    Visakhapatnam

2.     Hyderabad

3.             

A N D

1.                  Apartments
       ,
       

2.               3.                  4.    

       Apartments
       ,
       

5.                  Reliance Petrol Bunk Street,
       

Counsel for the Appellants           

Counsel for the Respondents        

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

1.    

2.    `2,046/- each.  HyderabadDelhi `442/- through Demand Draft dated 8.10.2005.  despite several calls made and emails sent and reminder dated 14.11.2005 followed by the notice dated 6.12.2005. 

3.     As per section 14 and 15 of Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India Act, no dispute between a group persons and service provider can be adjudicated under the provisions of C.P.Act and it is exclusively triable by the appellate authority constituted under the TRAI Act. TLC Marketing PIC is the offer supplying and administering company as provided by the terms and conditions no.25 of the offer brochure.      

4.    `5,500/- for each person.  `5,500/- per person in terms of condition no.5 of the brochure.   `999/- paid by the complainant no.1 was adjusted against the outstanding amount of`1,101/- in respect of mobile phone connection no.9849335819 of the complainant no.1. `1020/- was refunded after adjusting the dues to the complainant no.1. `1002/- was refunded to the complainant no.2 through cheque dated 18.4.2006 after deducting the dues pertaining to the mobile phone connection. 

5.       filed affidavit but no documents.

6.    `1,768/-.

7.     

8.    

1)               Whether the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2)               Whether the complainants entitled to the amount of Rs.25,000/- each towards compensation?

3)               To what relief?

9.            `2,046/- each.    14. (1)

Provided that if the members of the bench differ on any point or points they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to a third member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that member.

(2) The bench constituted under sub-section (1) shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all such jurisdiction , powers and authority as were exerciseable immediately before that date by any civil court on any matter relating to-

                              technical compatibility and inter-connections between service providers;

                             revenue sharing arrangements between different service providers;

                           quality of telecommunication services and interest of consumers;

Provided that nothing in sub-section shall apply in respect of matters relating to-

1. the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969;
2. the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

15. (1) An aggrieved person may make an application in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (2) of section 14 within such period as may be prescribed.

Filing of application to Authority and procedure for passing order by it.

                              any service provider who has a dispute in respect of matters referred to in clauses (1) and (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 14;

                             where any loss or damage is caused to a group of consumers, any member representing such group of consumers.

(2) On receipt of an application made under sub-section (1), the Authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such application and shall record reasons in writing if final order cannot be passed within the said period.

(3) While arriving at a decision, the Authority shall record in writing the reasons for such decision.

(4) Every decision of the Authority shall be published in the annual report of the(5) The orders and directions of the Authority shall be binding on the service providers, Government and all other persons concerned.

10.              

11.          `442/- as airport tax and surcharge on 20.10.2005 for the purpose of free flight to them and the complainants no.3 to 5 and that the opposite parties failed to provide the free air flight to them.  `5500/- for the return flight. `5500/- per person for the complainants no.3 to 5. 

12.   `5500/-.  

13.   

“The offer is only open to subscribers of AIR Tel in Andhra Pradesh, aged 18 or above, conforming the eligibility criteria set by Air Tel periodically”

14.    `442/- was paid by each of the complainant towards the airport taxes and surcharge.   

15.   thnd, 23^rdth `5500/- per person for the complainants no.3 to 5 for return flight, airport and other taxes, passenger service charges, airline failure insurance and other surcharges leveled by the airline, of`442/- per person. `442/- each. `5500/- each towards their return flight as required by the condition no.5 of the brochure.  

16.   `5500/- for return flight of each of the complainants’ no.3 to 5. `442/- towards air port tax, surcharge charge, and`5500/- for return ticket.  `5500/- for the return ticket of the complainants no.3 and 5, the complainants had suppressed the fact that the amount paid them was returned to them by the opposite parties. The statement of the opposite parties that the amount paid through demand drafts, the complainants no.3 to 5 was refunded to them as also by adjusting an amount of`999/- paid by the complainant no.1 against the outstanding due of`1101/- towards mobile telephone services availed by him and refunded an amount of`1020/- after deducting the dues against the mobile service connection no.9866667548 has not been denied nor disputed by the complainant no.1. `1002/- after deducting the dues against the mobile connection no.9866667546 was refunded through cheque dated 18.4.2006 to the complainant no.2 and the amount paid against the mobile connection no.9866667547 was adjusted against the dues payable by him towards service availed by him.  The complainants had received the amount without raising any protest or objection thereto.   

17.     

KMK*