Complaint against MTNL in consumer court


Please refer TRAI Act 1997

published in The Gazatte of India,EXTRAORDINARY, Part ll-Section 1
 
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
 
CHAPTER IV
Setllement of Disputes

14. (1) If a dispute arises, in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (2), among service providers or between service providers and a group of consumers, such disputes shall be adjudicated by a bench constituted by the Chairperson and such bench shall consist of two members;
Provided that if the members of the bench differ on any point or points they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to a third member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that member.

(2) The bench constituted under sub-section (1) shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all such jurisdiction , powers and authority as were exerciseable immediately before that date by any civil court on any matter relating to-

technical compatibility and inter-connections between service providers;
revenue sharing arrangements between different service providers;
quality of telecommunication services and interest of consumers;
Provided that nothing in sub-section shall apply in respect of matters relating to-

the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969;
the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
LEGAL COUNSEL

 Dear all,

Please the Supreme Court's Judgement attached

vasudevan



Attached File : 16 consumer telecom vs krishnan.doc downloaded 212 times

Total likes : 4 times

 
Reply   
 



 Thanks for attaching judgement the details that i collected are:

(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004

General Manager, Telecom Appellant versus M. Krishnan and another Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Contract Management

From the interesting debate it is clear that there is no clarity!

If complaint is covered under Teleggraphic act, which is Arbitration authority? What is their adress and Office set up ---in the reach of consumers (from Mumbai & Delhi for MTNL and entire country for BSNL)?

 
Reply   
 

after perusal of SC  judgement it seems arbitrator clause is covered only for state run telephone corporation as only they come under the defination of  arbitrator

 

 
Reply   
 

after perusal of SC  judgement it seems arbitrator clause is covered only for state run telephone corporation as only they come under the defination of  TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY AS

 
Reply   
 
advocate

MTNL IS COMES UNDER TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY, IT IS BETTER TO FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST MTNL BEFORE TELEGRAPHIC AUTHORITY.

 
Reply   
 

It appears that the latest Judgement (which appears to be ex-parte) has not considered the some earlier judgements of the Hon. SC, the most important of which is a THREE Judges Bench dicision in AIR 2000 SC 2008 "Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd." passed by G. B. PATTANAIK, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S. N. VARIAVA, JJ.

Although the case was a bit different in para 2 of the Judgement the Hon. SC observed :-

"2.........................................Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force"

Two other division bench judgements should also have been considered:-

AIR 2004 SC 448 "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agrl. Credit. Socy. v. M. Lalitha"

AIR 1997 SC 533 "Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., M/S. v. N. K. Modi"


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Please also refer to the following Article::::: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/article_list_detail.asp?article_id=1697


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Property management

Dear Members,

Justice Katcu's judgement is opposed by one of the ex-mambers of the forum in a Blog of Mahanagar Graham Panchayath. I am attaching contents of the blog

 



Attached File : 20 20 cp act needs to be protected.doc downloaded 105 times
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x