- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2016
(Against the Order dated 30/11/2015 in Appeal No. 34/2014 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
HAVING ITS CIRCLE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT:
2ND FLOOR, VENUS ATHLANTIS BUILDING, 100 FT.
ROAD,PRAHLADNAGAR,
AHMEDABAD, -380015 GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL
S/O GHANSHYAMDAS, AGARWAL, R/O 401, ALAUKIK
APARTMENTS 16, PRAKASHNAGAR, SOCIETY MANI
NAGAR,
AHMEDABAD-380008 GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Advocate
Ms. Sonali Jaitley, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Advocate
Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Ranjana, Jetley, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Dated : 26 May 2016
ORDER
By this Revision Petition, Idea Cellular Co. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order, dated 30.11.2015, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Revision Application No. 34 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 120 of 2014. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein, questioning the jurisdiction of the District Forum
1
to entertain a Complaint by an individual consumer relating to his monthly mobile user charges.
In arriving at the conclusion that a Complaint, alleging "deficiency" in service on the part of a cellular service provider, relating to the charges for the services provided, was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, despite existence of a provision for Arbitration and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, the State Commission has referred to and relied upon a number of decisions, including the order, dated 02.05.2014, passed by a Three Member Bench of this Commission in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. V. Komal Prakash (Revision Petition No. 1228 of 2013).
In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER
2
Alert