State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Adesh Kumar And Others on 20 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 15 / 2009
MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd.
through its Assistant Vice President
NBCC Plaza, Tower No. 3
2nd Floor, Pushp Vihar
Sector - 5, New Delhi - 110017
......Revisionist / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Dr. Adesh Kumar S/o Sh. Gopal
R/o Avas Vikas Colony, Jwalapur
Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Smt. Nisha Patel W/o Sh. Jogendra Patel
Proprietor, M/s New Star Cable Network
Adarsh Nagar, Behind Khoobsurat Palce
Jwalapur, Haridwar
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 4
Sh. K.M. Asad, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. Tarun Matta, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 20/03/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 134 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has directed the revisionist to start its signal feed to the respondent No. 2. The impugned order was passed by the Members of the District Forum and whereas the learned President of the District Forum vide 2 separate order of the even date, has summarily dismissed the consumer complaint, being not maintainable.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken a cable connection from the opposite party No. 4 - respondent No. 2 before this Commission. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties are adopting the monopolistic attitude and are not providing trouble free cable service. It is alleged that on 05.05.2009, the revisionist suddenly stopped the broadcast of the channels. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 03.06.2009 issued directions as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the signals of the respondent No. 2 were disconnected for want of payment of dues and public notice was published in the newspaper for disconnection of television signals of the respondent No. 2. It was also submitted that in view of the default on the part of the respondent No. 2 - Cable Operator in clearing the dues of the revisionist, the revisionist is unable to provide television signals to the respondent No. 2 and there being dispute regarding dues between the broadcaster and the cable operator, the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the 3 Consumer Fora and the District Forum fell in error in entertaining the same and passing the impugned order, which need to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the view taken by the District Forum and submitted that the complainant had taken a cable connection from the respondent No. 2 and the revisionist suddenly stopped the broadcast of the channels and, as such, the complainant was well within his rights to knock the door of the Consumer Fora. He also submitted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and, as such, the consumer complaint was maintainable.
7. So far as the maintainability of the consumer complaint is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex 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), has held that the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of other available remedies. Thus, it can not be said that the consumer complaint was not maintainable. The learned President of the District Forum in his dissenting order, thereby summarily dismissing the consumer complaint as not maintainable, has adverted to a decision of this Commission in the case of Zee Turner Limited Vs. Sanjeev Chauhan and others; I (2008) CPJ 318. In the said case, it has been held that a dispute between group of consumers and service provider is adjudicable by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. In the said case, the dispute was raised by a group of consumers and it was held that in view of Section 14 of the TRAI Act, dispute between a service provider and a group of consumers shall lie 4 to TDSAT. In the said decision, it has also been held that the said provision shall not apply to the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Fora. In the instant case, the consumer complaint has been filed by a single consumer and not by group of consumers and hence our said decision shall not apply in the instant case and it can not be held that the consumer complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.
8. So far as the direction issued by the District Forum per impugned order is concerned, the complainant has taken a cable connection from the respondent No. 2 by paying consideration, as stated in para 3 of the consumer complaint and the revisionist stopped the broadcast of the channels. For the dispute, if any, between the broadcaster and the cable operator, the consumer - complainant, who has hired the cable services by paying consideration, should not suffer and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the direction issued by the District Forum vide impugned order. The revision petition being lack of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited; II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) = IV (2011) SLT 303 = 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed that the revisional power can be exercised only if there is prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, the same may be set aside. Therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Bhawnesh Kumar Taneja; IV (2011) CPJ 561 (NC), we are of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for any interference for exercising power under the 5 revisional jurisdiction. Since the District Forum has given cogent reason in its order, which does not call for any interference, nor the impugned order suffer from any infirmity or jurisdictional error, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of above, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K