need judgement urgently

@ Author

1. It is I think still before the Registrar of MPSCDRC !

i dun think so its judgement of supreme court...

Dated : 21 May 2010

I am also aggreived of this judgement.... i had found the RP 1703/2010 and its A/295/10 in state commission MP. both are silent about the facts of the case...

i am in need of the District Order  to know the facts urgently... please post here if u able to get any details

Thanks

CA. Ranjana Soni

R.Soni & Associates Chartered Accountants

Ludhiana.

09855200619

ALSO REFER THIS ONE.. I THINK IT WILL BE USEFUL FOR U

Sir,

Any body can help me in getting the updates against Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010.

Sir,

 I am eagre  to know that the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010 is dismissed by the SCI,after that what happend in the case, if the SCI judgement stop's us(complainant's) to approach redressal forum's what is remedy for telephon consumers for telecom greviences.

Oh BSNL is oe ig devil. They know that the laws are not very strict and know that they canot be fired. They treat their customers like 3rd rate useless fellows and worse than beggars. They just nod for everything we say and don't do a thing. Since the Indian legal system is very weak and infested with wholes. It gives ample ways to exploit customer's and hence the lanky beahvaiour. So there is no respite as long as we are in this country. The only way for better life is to elope from this country. Here most of the businesses see customers as unwanted people and something like consumer protection almost does not exist some african countries are better.

In the back drop of SC's order in M.Krishnan vs. General Manager, BSNL and subsequent dismissal of SLP No.24577/2010 in re Prakash Verma vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., the jurisdiction hitherto exercised by Consumer Fora have been taken away.  I am a law graduate and employed in S.C.Railways and is an aggrieved person in a telecom dispute.  Inspite of the above orders, I have filed a SLP on the grounds that the order of the SCI in M.Krishnan vs. General Manager, BSNL is per incuriam.  I shall be grateful to receive suggestions if anybody can support me with their valuable views.

My Appeal is pending at Higher bench of NCDRC. What abt your SLP? Whether it is accepted or not. SC judgment in this regard is very illogical. I would like to enlighten you the following facts which i have produced before NCDRC.

i)    It is pertinent to mention here that in General Manager Vs M.Krishnan & Anr- (2009)8 SCC 481. The dispute in this case was regarding non-payment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No. 1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected.  Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer Forum   allowed the complaint  and   directed    the    appellant herein  to  re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No. 1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. However- 

 The facts of the above case & nature of telephone connection are different. The BSNL launched its Cellular Services in Kerala Circle on dated 23/10/2002. On the other hand District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode passed its order dated 26/11/2001. Hence The telephone connection is certainly not a Cellular phone. In the present case there is deficiency in regards to GPRS (General Packet Radio Services) related to Cellular services which is not specified in Indian Telegraph Act 1885.Consequently the Sec 7B does not apply in the present case as the dispute refers in this appeal is with refer to cellular telephone and nature of dispute is never heard in any of the Courts at the time, when the aforesaid judgment was passed.  

Dear Ranjana,

   I have filed a SLP and is presently under scrutiny.  My main contention is that the order of the Hon'ble SC is per incuriam and hence cannot survive, since none had brought to the notice of the Hon'ble SC about Regulation 25 of the "Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations 2007", which recognises the right of a consumer to seek redressal under the CP Act 1986.  The sole ground on which the Hon'ble SC stuck down the Kerala HC order was that the Telegraph Act shall survive, being specific Act, whereas the CP Act was a general Act.  The order of the SC in General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & anr. was an ex-parte order, where the Respondent (original complainant) did not appear. A consumer, in my opinion, has multiple avenue i.e., either to seek arbitration under Telegraph Act or to approach Consumer Fora, as envisaged in Regulation 25.  The Regulations/ Rules/ Instructions framed by the TRAI under TRAI Act are delegated legislation and are also exclusively intended for the benefit of Telecom Consumers and hence a specific Act, like Telegraph Act. The stand taken by various State Commissions are also differing, about the applicability or other wise of the SC's order for Private Service Providers.  I have brought out all the above in detail in the SLP and I am optimistic about the outcome.  Most probably the SLP will be heard for admission in November 2012.  Try to keep your litigation under pendency and wait for the outcome of my SLP - Shaji.M.K, Ph.09246290550

Dear Ranjana,

My SLP(Civil) is now numbered and stands posted for hearing on 07-01-2013.  What is happening at NCDRC in your case? - Shaji.M.K, Ph.09246290550.