Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/398

VODAFONE METRICE SERVICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER KR. DUBEY - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision : 20.03.2015

First Appeal No.398/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 01.03.2013 in Complaint Case No. 423/2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri, New Delhi-110093)

       

 

Vodafone India Limited

Through its General Manager

C-48, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase-II

Delhi-110042                                …Appellant 

                                                      

VERSUS

Sh. Surender Kumar Dubey

S/o Late Sh. R.N.Dubey

R/o E-413, Street No.1

West Karawal Nagar

Delhi-110094                          ......Respondent

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.       Present appeal is directed against the interim orders dt. 01.03.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North East) Bunkar Vihar Complex, Delhi-1100093. Vide impugned orders the Ld. District Forum dismissed the application filed by the OP therein.  In other words, Ld. District Forum held that the complaint filed by the complainant as such was maintainable. The following portion of the Ld. District Forum orders is relevant in the present context and the same is reproduced below:

“On an indepth perusal of the M.Krishnan judgment (supra) it is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing in it to the effect that it applies to the private service providers/licensees as well.  The bar under Section 7-B can be applied, if at all, to a dispute between an individual person and a Telegraph Authority as defined under Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act. By no stretch of interpretation the immunity is available to the licensees/private service providers under the said judgement.  While arriving at this view reliance has been placed on the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 8285/2010 & C.M.No. 21319/2-010 titled J.K.Mittal vs Union of India and Ors. wherein it has been held that Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act is not a bar to the maintainability of a consumer complaint before a Consumer Forum as the definition of “Telegraph Authority” as contained in Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act does not include a licensee per se.”

 

2.          It is a matter of common knowledge that the system of communication by way of telegraph is an outdated one.  Government of India has officially closed the telegraph network.  Indian Telegraph Act related to the transmission by way of telegraph.  The said act is also in the pipeline of the being repealed. Be that as it may, the disputes under the Telegraph Act are between consumers on the one hand and the department of telegraph on the other.  Telegraph Service never remained in the hands of corporate houses.  As on date there are a large number of corporate houses providing mobile telephone service.  Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted for the better protection of interests of the consumers.  The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are in addition to the provisions of the any other law for the time being in force.  The law is provided in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The consumers of mobile phone services who are crores and crores in number would be required to hire the services of arbitrators for petty cases, which they may not resort to.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits.  The same is hence dismissed.
3.       Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
4.       FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(Salma Noor)

•  

 

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

6.