Skip to content


K.Sivashankaran Vs. M/S. Reliance Communications Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.No. 236 of 2010 [Against order in C.C.No.42/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem]
Judge
AppellantK.Sivashankaran
RespondentM/S. Reliance Communications Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....of appellant side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the district forum, this commission made the following order :- a.k.annamalai, presiding judicial member 1. the unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. the complainant/appellant filed a complaint against the opposite party for deficiency of service for sudden stopping of credit payments, imposing deactivations and disconnections even after they were brought to their knowledge of opposite party by him; extending false promise like setting right grievances, making a subscriber to run after them for getting refund payment of refund after service of legal notice and violation of their own terms and conditions of trai direction and claiming refund of balance of security deposit amount and.....
Judgment:

The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-

A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The Complainant/appellant filed a complaint against the opposite party for deficiency of service for sudden stopping of credit payments, imposing deactivations and disconnections even after they were brought to their knowledge of opposite party by him; extending false promise like setting right grievances, making a subscriber to run after them for getting refund payment of refund after service of legal notice and violation of their own terms and conditions of TRAI direction and claiming refund of balance of security deposit amount and excess payment refund of money claiming compensation for Rs.13,52,861/-.

3. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant and the penal charges collected on the basis of default it was admitted by the complainant and there was no excessive billing and the bills are within the terms and conditions. Complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant being the chronic defaulter and the opposite party never asked the complainant to change his tariff and the complaint to be dismissed.

4. Based on both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum dismissed the complaint as complainant has not made out the case of deficiency of service and further complaint is not maintainable for want of privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party as on the date of filing of this complaint stating that the continues contract was on as if continuous process was on.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal by reiterating the contents of the complaint further stated the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint as complainant has not made out the case of deficiency of service and further complaint is not maintainable for want of privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party as on the date of filing this complaint stating that continues contract was on as if continuous process was on.

6. While the appeal is taken up for hearing and on perusal of both sides arguments, averments and contents of both sides written arguments, averments, it is seen that the complainant filed the complaint against the opposite party being the Reliance Communications Ltd., a company having under the control of the TRAI and comes under the Post and Telegraph Act for the purpose of service and the complainant claimed reliefs for refund of excess billing and deficiency in service relating to the change of plan term etc. But in view of the bar as per the ruling by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of

The General Manager, Telecom. Vs. Krishnan and Another.

The Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to decide such nature of prayers or reliefs against the Telecommunication Services and the District Forum either knowing well of this dictum or without relying upon the same on merits dismissed the complaint. Hence in those circumstances the learned counsel for the opposite party also brought to our notice about the bar as held by the Honble Supreme Court of India the case reported as above. This Commission also passed orders on that basis in the earlier appeals by following the above Honble Supreme Court decision. Hence we are of the view that in view of the dictum of the Honble Supreme Court the complainant has to approach concerned arbitrator to be appointed under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act by the concerned communication services to get the grievances redressed and thereby as the Honble Supreme Court ruled the dispute between the service provider and the consumer has to be decided by the arbitrator under Sec.7B and in view of the above position since the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction the order of the District Forum to be confirmed, though not on the grounds as found by the District Forum, but in view of the bar regarding jurisdiction the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with observation directing the complainant to approach the concerned authorities for proper remedy as held by the Apex Court. No order as to costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //