SHARAD CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. STAR INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by complainants is directed against the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa in C. C. No.266/2005 dismissing petitioners' complaint as against respondent No.1 - "star India Pvt. Ltd. ".

(2.) Respondent No.1-company is dealing in broadcasting STAR channels on TVs all over the country. Respondent No.2- M/s. Richa Cable Network was the sole distributor of respondent No.1- company for Rewa town from December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005. Petitioners five in number, are the residents of Rewa town and had obtained TV cable connections on monthly payment basis, from respondent No.2 so as to enable them to watch amongst others, the programmes of STAR channels broadcasted by respondent No.1- company. They on 13.9.2005 filed complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 agianst respondent-opposite parties complaining that on and after 3.9.2005 the respondents have illegally stopped broadcasting the STAR channel programmes even when the complainants have been paying regularly the necessary charges. The complainants thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondents claiming that the respondents be directed not to stop broadcasting of said channels programmes and pay compensation to them.

(3.) While respondent No.2 remained absent and filed no reply to the complaint before the Forum below, respondent No.1-company filed preliminary objection challenging maintainability of the complaint on the grounds : one, that there being no privity of contract between the complainants and the answering company, the formers are not its consumers and two, that a joint complaint by petitioners was not maintainable as such a dispute between a service provider and a group of consumers is cognizable exclusively by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (for short "tdsat") established under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short "trai Act" ). The Forum below upheld the objection and dismissed the petitioners' complaint as against respondent No.1. It was further held that licence granted to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 has also expired.