LOKESH PARASHAR ADVOCATE Vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 25 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) Briefly put, the petitioner obtained a mobile connection of the respondent No.1 Company bearing No.9911950795 through respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, at the time of obtaining the connection, he was assured that the validity of the mobile was upto February 2007. Later on, he got it extended upto July 2007 after making some payments. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents did not provide the cellular phone services to him and hence he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents who were made OPs 1 & 2 respectively. Upon notice, the respondents contested the consumer complaint and filed their written statement disputing the correctness of the averments made in the complaint of the petitioner. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondents also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint which was maintainable before the Arbitrator as provided in section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr., 2009 3 CPJ 71 and another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.24577 of 2010) the District Forum held that it did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint in question and hence dismissed the same as not maintainable vide its order dated 24.5.2011. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, Faridabad, the petitioner challenged the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (Panchkula), ( State Commission for short) by filing an appeal before it. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 7.7.2011 which is now under challenge through the present revision petition.