IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum cannot entertain Telephone disputes.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—By this miscellaneous application, the petitioner has sought restoration of revision petition no. 701 of 2011 which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution under order dated 30.05.2011.

2. In the above-mentioned miscellaneous application, the applicant/petitioner has stated inter alia the following:

“2. That the Hon’ble Commission has pleased to pass orders in the matter on 30.05.2011, ‘this matter was called out once. Even on second call no one is present. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in default and for non-prosecution’. The copy of the order was mailed to petitioner by the Commission vide covering letter dated 09.06.2011 per registered post no. 4153 which has been received on 21.06.2011.

3. That the petitioner has moved requests to the Hon’ble Commission on 24.03.2011 and 10.05.2011 to release his right to appear personally in the matter along with request to pass appropriate orders in the matter on the strength of material available on the record. A true and correct copy of request dated 24.03.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure – P – 8. A true and correct copy of request dated 10.05.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure

P – 9.

4. That the above requests (P – 8 and 9) might have escaped the kind attention of the Hon’ble Commission. The Hon’ble Commission has seriously erred in not considering the said requests. If the Hon’ble Commission would have taken cognizance of the requests the case would not have been dismissed merely for the want of prosecution”.

3. In support of his contention, the applicant/petitioner has also cited some rulings of the Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.

4. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid miscellaneous application, the revision petition is restored to its original number and is also decided at this stage (without notice) in view of the specific request of the applicant/petitioner to pass appropriate order in the matter on the strength of the material available on record, without requiring his presence or representation by any counsel on his behalf.

5. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the relief prayed for by the petitioner/appellant/complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu (in short, ‘the District Forum’) could not be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, ‘the Act’).

6. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum alleging that the opposite parties (OPs)/ respondents (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., through its relevant officers) levied a higher tariff for the use of his telephone connection (no. 224652) in the State of Rajasthan @ Rs.149/- per month plus taxes as against Rs.111/- applicable for telephone connections with similar facilities in the State of Gujarat. The complaint was opposed by the OPs on various grounds, including that the rates of tariff applicable to telephone connections with similar facilities could not be identical in all places in all States in view of the various techno-economic factors and that the complaint was not about a matter which could be covered by the provisions of the Act. The District Forum accepted the submissions of the OPs and dismissed the complaint by holding that the nature of allegation in the complaint and the relief sought in respect thereof were such as could not be covered within the ambit of the Act. As already noticed, the State Commission has agreed with this view and dismissed the appeal of the complainant by its impugned order.

7. The complaint does not establish any element of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs because there is no pleading concerning the techno-economic factors that are used in fixing the tariffs for t