need judgement urgently

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner ) 26 April 2011

@ Author

1. It is I think still before the Registrar of MPSCDRC !

kartikeya (lawyer/cyber law consultant/cyber crime investigator) 27 April 2011

i dun think so its judgement of supreme court...

Ranjana (Prop.) 01 May 2011


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1703 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 10/02/2010 in Appeal No. 295/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)

1. PRAKASH VERMA 114/4, North Musakhedi Indore Madhya Pradesh						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. & ANR. 139-140, Electronic Complex, Pardeshipura Indore Madhya Pradesh - 542010 2. MR. UDAI VEER SINGH, NODAL OFFICER-"IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED" C/o. BTA Cell Com. Limited, 139-140, Electronic Complex, Pardeshipura Indore Madhya Pradesh - 542010						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. BHARAT BHUSHAN

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 21 May 2010

ORDER

Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. – (2009)8 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

The judgement of the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts. There is no scope for interference. Dismissed.

......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT

......................
S.K. NAIK
MEMBER

Ranjana (Prop.) 01 May 2011

I am also aggreived of this judgement.... i had found the RP 1703/2010 and its A/295/10 in state commission MP. both are silent about the facts of the case...

i am in need of the District Order to know the facts urgently... please post here if u able to get any details

Thanks

CA. Ranjana Soni

R.Soni & Associates Chartered Accountants

Ludhiana.

09855200619

vyshnavi neelakantapillai (student) 09 May 2011

General Manager, Telecom vs M. Krishnan & Anr. on 1 September, 2009

Bench: M Katju, A K Ganguly

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7687 OF 2004 General Manager, Telecom .... Appellant Versus

M. Krishnan & Anr. .... Respondent O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondents although they had been served.

This appeal is directed against the Full Bench judgment and order dated 14.02.2003 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.

The dispute in this case was regarding non-payment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No. 1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant 2

herein to re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No. 1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

Aggrieved against the order of the Consumer Forum, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench felt that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench and hence the matter was placed before the Full Bench. By the impugned order the Full Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, the appellant is before us by way of present appeal by special leave.

In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:- "S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in 3

this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.

(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.

It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.

4

In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 26.11s.2001.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs. .....................J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

.....................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 01, 2009

vyshnavi neelakantapillai (student) 09 May 2011

ALSO REFER THIS ONE.. I THINK IT WILL BE USEFUL FOR U

Advocate Suresh Kumar T V (Advocate & Indirect Tax Consultant) 18 August 2011

Dear Members

Agaisnt the national commissioner order, they have filed specail leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, The Supreme court also dismissed the same.

ITEM NO.38 Court No.9 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010

(From the judgement and order dated 21/05/2010 in RP No. 1703/2010

of The NATIONAL CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI)

PRAKASH VERMA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

IDEA CELLULAR LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report)

Date: 01/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fakhruddin, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raj Kishor Chaudhary, Adv.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv.

Mr. G.G. Padmakar Tripathi, Adv.

Ms. Gulfeeshan Javed, Adv.

Ms. Chitranjali Negi, Adv.

Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENUKA SADANA)

Court Master Court Master

P SIVA KUMAR (Student) 13 February 2012

Sir,

Any body can help me in getting the updates against Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010.

P SIVA KUMAR (Student) 13 February 2012

Sir,

I am eagre to know that the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010 is dismissed by the SCI,after that what happend in the case, if the SCI judgement stop's us(complainant's) to approach redressal forum's what is remedy for telephon consumers for telecom greviences.

Parthasaradhy (VP Technology) 16 March 2012

Oh BSNL is oe ig devil. They know that the laws are not very strict and know that they canot be fired. They treat their customers like 3rd rate useless fellows and worse than beggars. They just nod for everything we say and don't do a thing. Since the Indian legal system is very weak and infested with wholes. It gives ample ways to exploit customer's and hence the lanky beahvaiour. So there is no respite as long as we are in this country. The only way for better life is to elope from this country. Here most of the businesses see customers as unwanted people and something like consumer protection almost does not exist some african countries are better.

Shaji.M.K (Loco Pilot) 15 October 2012

In the back drop of SC's order in M.Krishnan vs. General Manager, BSNL and subsequent dismissal of SLP No.24577/2010 in re Prakash Verma vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., the jurisdiction hitherto exercised by Consumer Fora have been taken away. I am a law graduate and employed in S.C.Railways and is an aggrieved person in a telecom dispute. Inspite of the above orders, I have filed a SLP on the grounds that the order of the SCI in M.Krishnan vs. General Manager, BSNL is per incuriam. I shall be grateful to receive suggestions if anybody can support me with their valuable views.

1 Like

Ranjana (Prop.) 16 October 2012

My Appeal is pending at Higher bench of NCDRC. What abt your SLP? Whether it is accepted or not. SC judgment in this regard is very illogical. I would like to enlighten you the following facts which i have produced before NCDRC.

i) It is pertinent to mention here that in General Manager Vs M.Krishnan & Anr- (2009)8 SCC 481. The dispute in this case was regarding non-payment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No. 1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant herein to re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No. 1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. However-

The facts of the above case & nature of telephone connection are different. The BSNL launched its Cellular Services in Kerala Circle on dated 23/10/2002. On the other hand District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode passed its order dated 26/11/2001. Hence The telephone connection is certainly not a Cellular phone. In the present case there is deficiency in regards to GPRS (General Packet Radio Services) related to Cellular services which is not specified in Indian Telegraph Act 1885.Consequently the Sec 7B does not apply in the present case as the dispute refers in this appeal is with refer to cellular telephone and nature of dispute is never heard in any of the Courts at the time, when the aforesaid judgment was passed.

Shaji.M.K (Loco Pilot) 30 October 2012

Dear Ranjana,

I have filed a SLP and is presently under scrutiny. My main contention is that the order of the Hon'ble SC is per incuriam and hence cannot survive, since none had brought to the notice of the Hon'ble SC about Regulation 25 of the "Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations 2007", which recognises the right of a consumer to seek redressal under the CP Act 1986. The sole ground on which the Hon'ble SC stuck down the Kerala HC order was that the Telegraph Act shall survive, being specific Act, whereas the CP Act was a general Act. The order of the SC in General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & anr. was an ex-parte order, where the Respondent (original complainant) did not appear. A consumer, in my opinion, has multiple avenue i.e., either to seek arbitration under Telegraph Act or to approach Consumer Fora, as envisaged in Regulation 25. The Regulations/ Rules/ Instructions framed by the TRAI under TRAI Act are delegated legislation and are also exclusively intended for the benefit of Telecom Consumers and hence a specific Act, like Telegraph Act. The stand taken by various State Commissions are also differing, about the applicability or other wise of the SC's order for Private Service Providers. I have brought out all the above in detail in the SLP and I am optimistic about the outcome. Most probably the SLP will be heard for admission in November 2012. Try to keep your litigation under pendency and wait for the outcome of my SLP - Shaji.M.K, Ph.09246290550