2014 (5) TMI 1217 - Commission - Indian Laws

Commission restores petition, compensates for negligence in call facilities. Consumer protection forums address telecom disputes.

Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Versus Komal Prakash

The Commission allowed the restoration of the revision petition and recalled the order dismissing it for non-prosecution. The petitioner company admitted ... Maintainability of complaint before District Forum - revisionary jurisdiction - sim card and the mobile number in question having been allotted to some other person - Outgoing and incoming call facility on the said mobile number could not be provided to the complainant - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner company was ready to compensate the complainant for this inadvertent mistake. In view of the said admission of negligence by the petitioner and having regard to the quantum of compensation awarded (₹ 20,000/-) this is not a fit case for our interference in revisionary jurisdiction. As the powers of a 'Telegraph Authority' are now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in, the BSNL; Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers. In the light of the said clarification, the complaint before the District Forum was clearly maintainable and the objection of the petitioner in this regard is bereft of any merit. The revision petition is dismissed. Issues: Restoration of revision petition and recall of order, Negligence of petitioner company, Maintainability of complaintRestoration of Revision Petition and Recall of Order:The petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the revision petition and recall of the order dated 04.02.2014, which dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and default. The Commission allowed the application, recalling the order and restoring the revision petition to its original position.Negligence of Petitioner Company:The State Commission noted the petitioner company's admission of negligence, stating that due to the sim card and mobile number being allotted to another person, call facilities could not be provided to the complainant. The company expressed readiness to compensate for the mistake. Considering this admission and the compensation awarded, the Commission found no grounds for interference in revisionary jurisdiction.Maintainability of Complaint:The revision petition raised concerns about the complaint's maintainability in light of a Supreme Court judgment. However, a clarification from the Government of India highlighted that the judgment in question pertained to disputes involving a 'Telegraph Authority' under the Indian Telegraph Act, which did not apply to private telecom service providers. As per the clarification, the Consumer Protection Forums were competent to entertain disputes between individual telecom consumers and providers. Therefore, the complaint before the District Forum was deemed maintainable, and the objection raised by the petitioner was dismissed for lacking merit.This judgment addresses the restoration of a revision petition and the recall of a previous order, the negligence of the petitioner company in failing to provide call facilities, and the maintainability of the complaint in light of relevant legal provisions and clarifications from the Government of India. The Commission allowed the restoration of the petition, dismissed the revision petition due to the company's admission of negligence, and upheld the maintainability of the complaint based on the clarification regarding the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to disputes involving individual telecom consumers and service providers.