Case nº Revision Petition No. 190 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 15/11/2011 in Appeal No. 102/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, April 29, 2013 (case Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.)

President:Mr. V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Defense:Indian Telegraph Act - Section 7B; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 21(b), 21; Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - Rule 10A
Resolution Date:April 29, 2013
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. In this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 15.11.2011, passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (short, tate Commission vide which appeal of the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

  2. The grievance of petitioner is that his mobile no.9818070874 has been debarred for outgoing calls since 21.8.2010. It is also alleged that the same was disconnected on 6.9.2010 for incoming calls by the respondent/opposite party. However, mobile phone services were restored on 14.10.2010 for four days. Again outgoing calls were restricted on 18.10.2010. Finally, it was permanently disconnected on 9.11.2010. It is further alleged that respondent has disconnected the mobile service without any valid reasons. Petitioner has made the payment of their each and every bill till date.

  3. Respondent after receipt of the notice, filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint itself, before the District Forum.

  4. District Forum, vide order dated 19.2.2011 held; ence, Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is applicable in the present case and the jurisdiction of Consumer District Forum is barred as per the decision of the Apex Court and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the complainant may approach the concerned authorities for appointment of their Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.

  5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide its impugned order observing as under; n our view the order passed by the District Consumer Forum has to survive because the Honle Supreme Court in case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Anr., AIR 2010 Supreme Court has clearly held that the disputes relating to telephones and telegraph activities the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. In view of the above, we dismissed this appeal, upheld the order passed by District Forum-VII, Local Shopping Centre, Phase II, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi -17. No order as to the cost.

  6. Hence, this revision petition.

  7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

  8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in its submissions has wholly relied upon the decision of J.K. Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P (C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.21319/2010) decided on 6.2.2012, by Delhi High Court. In this case, it was held by the High Court; hat mere existence of...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL