BHARTI HEXACOM LTD Vs. KOMAL PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner for restoration of the revision petition and for recall of order dated 04.02.2014, vide which the said revision petition was dismissed for non -prosecution as well as in default. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed; order dated 04.02.2014 is recalled; and the revision petition is restored to its original position.

(2.) IN the impugned order the State Commission has noted that it was stated on behalf of the petitioner company that the sim card and the mobile number in question having been allotted to some other person, outgoing and incoming call facility on the said mobile number could not be provided to the complainant and, therefore, the petitioner company was ready to compensate the complainant for this inadvertent mistake. In view of the said admission of negligence by the petitioner and having regard to the quantum of compensation awarded (Rs. 20,000/ -) we do not find in to be a fit case for our interference in revisionary jurisdiction.

(3.) WE may also note that the main point on which notice in this revision petition was issued was with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and Anr., 2009 8 SCC 481). However, subsequently, vide a letter dated 24.01.2014, the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and IT, while responding to the communication received from the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of West Bengal on 07.10.2013, in relation to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in M. Krishnan , has clarified that the said decision involved a dispute between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which was a "Telegraph Authority" under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to the hiving off of telecom services into a separate company, viz., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). However, as the powers of a "Telegraph Authority" are now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in, the BSNL; Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers. In the light of the said clarification, the complaint before the District Forum was clearly maintainable and the objection of the petitioner in this regard is bereft of any merit. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.