Skip to main content

Reliance Communications to pay Rs 10K for malpractice: Forum

Reliance Communications Ltd has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 10,000 to one of its subscribers as compensation for its "malpractice" of changing his tariff plan without his consent.
The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also held that Reliance Communications, being a private service provider, is not a telegraph authority and hence, it cannot avail the immunity available under a Supreme Court verdict exempting telegraph authorities from the purview of Consumer Protection Act in telecom matters.
A bench headed by N A Zaidi said the matter was "a clear cut case of malpractice thriving in the telecom industry at the hands of the service providers like the respondent (RCL)" as the telecom major could not show the TRAI circular on the basis of which it had arbitrarily changed its subscriber's tariff plan.
As Reliance had "erred to file" the TRAI circular to defend its action, the forum observed that "it is farcical to believe that an authority will vest such sweeping powers to anyone working under it as it would be ultra vires the powers conferred by the Central Government upon such authority (TRAI) and would curtail the Fundamental Rights of the complainant."
"Failure to place on record the said circular leaves no room for doubt that no such circular had ever been issued by the TRAI conferring such one-sided powers which are against the public policy upon the mobile phone service providers," the forum said.
The order came on the complaint of Delhi resident Jugnu Jayant who had alleged that his unlimited tariff plan was changed by Reliance Communications without his consent.
The company in its defence had said that as per a TRAI circular it is empowered to change the tariff plan of any of its customers after a period of six months from the date of activation of the said plan.
It had contended that it being a telegraph authority, the complaint against it cannot be entertained by the forum.
Rejecting the telecom major's contentions, the forum directed it to restore the tariff plan of Jayant.

Article referred: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/reliance-communications-to-pay-rs-10k-for-malpractice-forum/1174181

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more