N. K. Jain, President.—This revision by complainant is directed against the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa in C.C. No. 266/2005 dismissing petitioner’s complaint as against Respondent No. 1 “Star India Pvt. Ltd.”

2. Respondent No. 1 company is dealing in broadcasting STAR channels on TVs all over the country. Respondent No. 2 M/s Richa Cable Network was the sole distributor of Respondent No. 1 company for Rewa Town from December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005. Petitioners five in number, are the residents of Rewa Town and had obtained TV cable connections on monthly payment basis, from Respondent No.2 so as to enable them to watch amongst others, the programmes of STAR channels broadcasted by Respondent No. l company. They on 13.9.2005 filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against respondent-opposite parties complaining that on and after 3.9.2005 the respondents have illegally stopped broadcasting the STAR channel programmes even when the complainants have been paying regularly the necessary charges. The complainants thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondents claiming that the respondents be directed not to stop broadcasting of said channels programmes and pay compensation to them.

3. While Respondent No.2 remained absent and filed no reply to the complaint before the Forum below, Respondent No.1 company filed preliminary objection challenging maintainability of the complaint on the grounds: one, that there being no privity of contract between the complainants and the answering company, the formers are not its consumers and two, that a joint complaint by petitioners was not maintainable as such a dispute between a service provider and a group of consumers is cognizable exclusively by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (for short “TDSAT”) established under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short “TRAI Act’). The Forum below upheld the objection and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint as against Respondent No. 1. It was further held that licence granted to Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. l has also expired.

4. We have heard Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Punit Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

5. At the outset it may be observed that as per complainants’ own showing the term of contract of distributorship of STAR channels in Rewa Town, between the two respondents, has expired on November 30, 2005 and so the relief claimed by the petitioners for direction to respondents to telecast the said channels, is rendered infructuous, the complainants can at best claim compensation on proof of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as against Respondent No. 1 it is further to be seen whether the complaint is maintainable.

6. Relevant part of Section 14 of the TRAI Act is as under:

“14 (a) adjudicate any dispute:

(i) between a licensor and a licensee,

(ii) between two or more service providers,

(iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers,

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to:

(A) ……….

(B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986);

(C) …………………….” (Emphasis Supplied)

Section 15 of the TRAI Act further

confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Appellate Tribunal and thus reads:

“15. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction—No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authorit