<p> <br />A bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph directed the respondents to file their responses to the petition filed by Nivedita Sharma, who has challenged the Delhi High Court ruling that quashed the Delhi State Consumer Commission directions.<br /><br />On January 15, 2010, the Delhi High Court had set aside the ruling of the Delhi Consumer Commission, which allowed every consumer annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls and messages to be compensated with Rs 25,000, if it was proven.<br /><br />The High Court had said that the consumer commission did not have jurisdiction and that it can neither fix a minimum or maximum compensation when no such compensation is provided under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.</p>
<p> <br />A bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph directed the respondents to file their responses to the petition filed by Nivedita Sharma, who has challenged the Delhi High Court ruling that quashed the Delhi State Consumer Commission directions.<br /><br />On January 15, 2010, the Delhi High Court had set aside the ruling of the Delhi Consumer Commission, which allowed every consumer annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls and messages to be compensated with Rs 25,000, if it was proven.<br /><br />The High Court had said that the consumer commission did not have jurisdiction and that it can neither fix a minimum or maximum compensation when no such compensation is provided under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.</p>
