This Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 22.3.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.2701/2007.  By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 6.11.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Azamgarh (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.182/2006, the State Commission has held that any dispute pertaining to Telecom services, between an individual and the telecom service provider, does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the consumer has no option but to invoke Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and have his grievance redressed by way of Arbitration.

       Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of BSNL, the contesting Opposite Parties in the Complaint.  A communication has been received from the Complainant that having regard to the quantum of the amount involved, he will not be in a position to appear before this Commission and the case may be decided on merits.  Accordingly, we proceed to decide the case.

       In so far as this Commission is concerned, the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra, in view of the decision dated 2.5.2014 rendered by a Larger Bench of this Commission in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. vs. Komal Prakash & Anr. [Revision Petition No.1228/2013]  In the said order, taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. – (2009) 8 SCC 481, which has been relied upon in the order impugned in this Petition, this Commission has held as follows :

“We may also note that the main point on which notice in this revision petition was issued was with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, in view of the judgment of the Honle Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom V. M. Krishnan & Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 481]. However, subsequently, vide a letter dated 24.01.2014, the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, while responding to the communication received from the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of West Bengal on 07.10.2013, in relation to the Honle Supreme Court judgment in M. Krishnan (supra), has clarified that the said decision involved a dispute between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which was a elegraph Authorityunder the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to the hiving off of telecom services into a separate company, viz., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). However, as the powers of a elegraph Authorityare now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”

The benefit of the aforesaid decision of this Commission was not available to the State Commission as the decision in the present case was rendered in the year 2010,.

       In view of the above, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order and restore the Appeal to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on its merits, after due notice to the parties.

       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.