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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more