MANAGER, AIRTEL SHOW ROOM Vs. KAVALAPARA SANKARANARAYANA CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant's no.1 and 2 applied for four Air Tel connections under the category of (Plan 249 CORP/Retail/CUG) by paying Rs. 2,046/- each. The opposite party no.1 had assigned connection nos.9849335819 and 9866667548 to the complainant no.1 and connection nos.9866667546 and 9866668547 to the complainant no.2. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the second complainant along with the complainants no.3 to 5 had filed request forms on 20.10.2005 opting to travel from Hyderabad to Delhi with the first option departure schedule on 22.11.2005. They had paid Rs. 442/- through Demand Draft dated 8.10.2005. The opposite parties had not given any response despite several calls made and emails sent and reminder dated 14.11.2005 followed by the notice dated 6.12.2005.

(3.) The opposite parties resisted the claim contending that the complaint is not maintainable as it was filed by group of persons. As per section 14 and 15 of Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India Act, no dispute between a group persons and service provider can be adjudicated under the provisions of C.P.Act and it is exclusively triable by the appellate authority constituted under the TRAI Act. TLC Marketing PIC is the offer supplying and administering company as provided by the terms and conditions no.25 of the offer brochure. The TLC marketing is necessary party to the proceedings. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the employees of the opposite party no.3 and the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. As per condition no.17 of the brochure, the offer is open to the subscriber the opposite party no.3. The complainant no.3 to 5 are not the subscribers. The complaint is not maintainable.