9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 334 - HC - Indian LawsComplain under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Power of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum to entertain the complaint against the telecom companies - Whether the Bharti Airtel Limited and one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, Territory Sales Manager, Bharti Airtel Services Limited are telegraph authorities - Held that - impugned order dated 22-9-2010 passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, as it erroneously holds that the consumer complaint of the petitioner was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is clear that the respondent No. 2 is not a telegraph authority. The bar under Section 7B, if at all, could have applied, had the dispute arisen between the petitioner and a telegraph authority, which the respondent No. 2 is not. Merely because respondent No. 2 is a licensee under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it does not confer on it the status of a telegraph authority. If the intendment of Director General of Posts & Telegraph were to confer the status of the Telegraph Authority upon the licensees under Section 4, the Director General of Posts & Telegraph, which comes under the Central Government could have issued the requisite notification under Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, which has not been done. The Supreme Court has given a broad interpretation to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, in the light of the clear expression used by the Parliament, which states that the Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. Mere existence of an arbitration agreement, assuming there is one between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, would not bar the maintainability of a consumer claim, as held by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society (2003 (12) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT) and Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, 1996 (8) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT Petitioner s consumer claim is maintainable before the District Forum. The District Forum is, therefore, directed to entertain and consider the said claim on its merits. Decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of District Forum under Consumer Protection Act in light of Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act. Analysis: The petitioner filed a consumer case against the respondent, Bharti Airtel Limited, and raised grievances regarding the provision of services. The District Forum dismissed the complaint citing lack of jurisdiction due to Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner's appeal before the State Commission was also dismissed on the same grounds. The petitioner argued that the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Referring to relevant case laws, the petitioner contended that the Act provides an additional remedy and does not automatically bar the jurisdiction of consumer forums in cases where other laws may apply. The petitioner further argued that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act could not be invoked as it pertains to disputes with a "telegraph authority," which the respondent was not defined as. The respondent's status as a licensee under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act did not automatically confer the status of a telegraph authority. The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments and held that the consumer complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. The impugned order was set aside, directing the District Forum to consider the claim on its merits. The Court emphasized that the existence of an arbitration agreement, if any, would not bar the consumer claim under the Consumer Protection Act. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition, setting aside the State Commission's order and affirming the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain and adjudicate the consumer claim. The parties were directed to appear before the District Forum for further proceedings.
|
