Back
UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Irshad Hussain, President and C.C. Pant, Member
ZEE TURNER LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SANJEEV CHAUHAN AND ORS. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 22 of 2007
Decided on : 07-01-2008
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. T.S. Bindra, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kohli, Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and the applicability of the TRAI Act and the Consumer Protection Act are crucial in determining the maintainability of consumer complaints.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) - Section 14 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 9, 14 - Summary: The court discussed the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum in adjudicating disputes between a group of consumers and a service provider in the context of the TRAI Act. It highlighted the provisions of the TRAI Act and the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing that the TRAI Act provides for adjudication of disputes between a group of consumers and service provider by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), while the Consumer Protection Act allows for individual consumer complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The court referred to relevant case laws and held that the District Forum erred in admitting the complaint and passing the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the consumer complaint as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition challenged an interim order of the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar, which directed the service provider to restore and continue uninterrupted broadcast of its channels to all consumers viewing the same through a cable operator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum erred in admitting the complaint and passing the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the consumer complaint as not maintainable.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, applicability of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act), and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the TRAI Act provides for adjudication of disputes between a group of consumers and service provider by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), while the Consumer Protection Act allows for individual consumer complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside, and the consumer complaint was dismissed as not maintainable.
ORDER
C.C. Pant, Member - This revision petition is directed against the interim order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar in Consumer Complaint No. 166 of 2007, titled Sh. Sanjeev Chauhan and Another v. Zee Turner Ltd. and Another. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum, while permitting the complainant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to present the complaint on behalf of other consumers also, has directed the service provider-revisionist to restore and continue uninterrupted broadcast of its channels to all the consumers viewing the same through cable operator-respondent No. 3. The revisionist has challenged the interim order dated 19.6.2007 on the ground that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and also that it is contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the District Forum has erred in admitting the consumer complaint, which was not maintainable.
2. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the complaint has been filed by a group of consumers and, therefore, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum to adjudicate the dispute in the light of the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act). The relevant Section 14 of the TRAI Act reads as under:
"14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to
(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) ................................................"
4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgment dated 17.11.2006 of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 87 of 2005, Grahak Hitvardhini Sarvajanik Sansthas v. Intermedia Cable Communications Pvt. Ltd., and decision of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in the matter of Sharad Chandra Tiwari and Others v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (2007) 3 CPJ 198. In both these judgments, it has been held that the dispute between a group of consumers and service provider can be adjudicated by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under Section 14 of the TRAI Act.
5. Defence taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted with the objective to provide for "better protection" of the interests of consumer and is in addition and not in derogation of provisions of any other law. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M.D., Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. v. K.S. Sudarsan, (2002) 3 CPJ 181 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that:
"The question before us is not as to whether the dispute, in the present case, is covered under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the dispute before us also falls within the jurisdiction of the authority provided under the said Cooperative Societies Act. But, considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, we find that it has been worded in the widest terms and leaves no one in any doubt about the remedies u
