TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED Vs. KULWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How and when provisions of sub-section (8) of Sec. 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Act') can be invoked by a Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) (for short, 'PLA')?, is the riddle that craves an answer in this intra court appeal preferred by Tata Teleservices Limited (here-in-after referred to as 'the appellant') to lay a challenge to order dated Sept. 11, 2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 18927 of 2015 : 2016(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 48, Tata Teleservices Limited Vs. Kulwinder Singh and another, challenging award dated July 08, 2015(Annexure P-5) whereby PLA, Rupnagar has accepted an application for settlement of dispute and for failure of conciliation proceedings to decide the matter on merits, made by Kulwinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as, 'the user').

(2.) Let's first have a quick overview of the facts of the case.

(3.) The user, a practicing lawyer and resident of House No. 86, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), had an Airtel mobile phone with sim card No. 9872903100. A representative of the appellant approached the user and offered him a lucrative post-paid plan with good and wide network connectivity provided he (the user) switched over to TATA DOCOMO service. The user, believing the assurance to be true, availed himself of the portability service and switched over to TATA DOCOMO service of the appellant with effect from Oct. 17, 2014. To utter dismay of the user, network connectivity of his mobile phone came out to be dismal. Having failed to get a positive response from the appellant to his various telephonic and written complaints, the user approached the PLA for redressal of his grievance and award of compensation for the inconvenience caused to him. Responding to notice under sub-section (3) of Sec. 22C of the 1987 Act, the appellant appeared before the PLA and submitted a detailed written statement denying claim of the user by submitting that as per licence granted to it by Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, the coverage percentage of the service provided by the appellant was 90% because 100% coverage is not possible as signal's transmission strength is subject to various technological and external factors like penetration loss owing to physical hindrances viz. walls, buildings, cluttered spaces in between the houses/buildings etc. It was also stated by the appellant in the written statement that user's house is away from the equipment installed by the appellant and signal falls weak there.