STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VIPIN SEMWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 4 connected revisions arise out of main order dated 9.11.2004 passed by the District Forum, Dehra Dun passed in two separate Complaints No. 114 of 2004, Sh. Vishwamitra Bhardwaj v. M/s. New Prime Network and Others, and No. 115 of 2004, Sh. Vipin Semwal v. M/s. Uttranchal Cable Network and Others. In all the four revisions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all the revisions are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE main revision was filed by M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. on 16.11.2004, while the stay order was passed by the learned Forum on 9.11.2004. The revision could not be disposed of earlier because on the dates of hearing, the learned Counsel for M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. argued that the order passed by the learned Forum is ex parte, date for hearing has been fixed on merits for vacation or confirmation of the injunction order but the fact remains that the Dehra Dun Forum has become defunct. The lady member has not been appointed for the last more than one year. The other member Sh. K.P.S. Lamba has gone on long leave of about 6 months. The learned Forum could not hear the injunction matters on merits, therefore M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services has also filed two revisions against the same order with a prayer that the revisions be disposed of by this State Commission and merit of the order be examined because the learned District Forum, Dehra Dun has become defunct. We are fully aware of the provisions of law that in revision, only jurisdictional matters are to be seen. The revision lies only when there is no exercise of jurisdiction or wrong exercise of jurisdiction. In a case decided by Punjab State Commission reported in Tarsem Lal Goyal v. Union of India, 1993 2 CPJ 765Punjab, it has been specifically held that Power of Commission in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 17(b) of the Act is strictly restricted to the question of jurisdiction. The same view has been given by the National Commission in the ruling Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., 1991 2 CPJ 286(NC), and Mohan Lal Gupta v. Haryana Telecom Circle and Another, 1993 2 CPJ 229(NC).

(3.) THE learned Counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Mr. Rajeshwar Singh referred the ruling , C.S. Menon v. V.V. Kanniah and Others, 1994 3 CPJ 8 given by the Hon ble National Commission and referred para 6 of the ruling. In this ruling as well firstly there has been wrong exercise of jurisdiction and that exercise is with material irregularity. It is not held that merely on the basis of material irregularity, the revision has been admitted. The material irregularity shall go to the root of jurisdictional error, then only it can be seen. The learned Forum has got jurisdiction to grant interim injunction. The complainants are consumers inasmuch as they are paying consideration. They are paying consideration through M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network or M/s. New Prime Network, who are paying consideration to M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. These cable networks are not paying the money from their own pocket. They are paying consideration to M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. through the collections from the consumers and then M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. transmits its programmes. The consumer disputes are not confined only to direct consumer and service provider. Even the beneficiaries of services are entitled to raise such disputes and in that case there may or may not be privity of contract between M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and the consumer directly but being the beneficiaries of transmission on payment of consideration, they are entitled to a relief, if they are not being provided transmission and, therefore, there is consumer dispute and if there is a consumer dispute, the Forum has got jurisdiction to pass interim orders and if the Forum has got jurisdiction to pass interim order and has passed orders on sufficient grounds, it cannot be said to be a case of jurisdictional error. The revisions should be disposed of merely on these grounds but being a supervisory authority of the District Forum, we can suo motu examine the case and in view of the fact that the Forum is not going to pass any orders in the coming 6 months, we have to discharge our own obligations and to see whether the order stands on merit or not and, therefore, we proceeded to hear the case on merits.