State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zee Turner Limited vs Sh. Sanjeev Chauhan on 7 January, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 22 / 2007
Zee Turner Limited
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
having its registered office at 5th Floor, Radisson Plaza,
NH 8, New Delhi through its Legal Officer.
......Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Chauhan S/o Sh. B.S. Chauhan
R/o J-392, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL,
Haridwar.
2. Dr. V.K. Kaul S/o late Sh. T.N. Kaul
R/o P-185, Shivalik Nagar,
Haridwar.
3. Manoranjan Cable Network
N-94, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL,
Haridwar through its Proprietor Sh. Sohit Chaudhary.
.....Respondents
Sh. Lokendra Dobhal, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. T.S. Bindra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Sh. Manoj Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 07/01/2008
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This revision petition is directed against the interim order dated 19.06.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 166 of 2007, titled Sh. Sanjeev Chauhan and another Vs. Zee Turner Ltd. and another. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum, while permitting the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to present the complaint on behalf of other consumers also, has directed the service provider - revisionist to restore and 2 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 19.06.2007 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 3 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 Vs. 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 Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another; III (2007) 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. Vs. K.S. Sudarshan; III (2002) 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 under the Consumer Protection Act being in addition to and not in 4 derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, even if any other Act provides for any remedy to a litigant but does not bar the jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act, it will be open to the litigant to go to District Forum or State Commission as the case may be and seek his remedy under this Act. Fora under this Act are not Civil Courts even though they have the trappings of a Civil Court."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs. and Others; I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"Thus, having regard to all aspects, we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission, however, did not take note of the fact that the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the appeals on merits. We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant for remanding the case to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that the complaints before the District Forum made by the respondents were maintainable and the District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view, while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the Forum under the Act, we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on merits without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the Forum under the 1986 Act."
7. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in the matter of South Central Railway and another Vs. Kamalabai and another; II 5 (2007) CPJ 116 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Star India (P) Ltd. Vs. Siti Cable Network Ltd. and others; III (2003) CPJ 1 (SC).
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents do not have a direct bearing in the instant case. In TRAI Act, it has been specifically provided that a dispute between a group of consumers and service provider shall lie to TDSAT set up under Section 14 of the TRAI Act, but the provisions shall not apply to 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. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Grahak Hitvardhini Sarvajanik Sansthas (supra), has also held that the dispute between the service provider and the group of consumers is maintainable before the TDSAT. Similar view has been expressed by Madhya Pradesh State Commission in the matter of Sharad Chandra Tiwari and others (supra).
9. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the District Forum, Haridwar did not consider the legal aspect of the case and has erred in admitting the complaint and also while passing the impugned order.
10. In the result, revision petition is allowed. Order dated 19.06.2007 of the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to cost.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)