VODAFONE IDEA CELLULAR LTD. Vs. AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal (Civil Appeal No 923 of 2017) arises from a judgment and order dtd. 26/5/2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( "NCDRC ") which was rendered in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The issue is whether Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in deciding a dispute between a telecom company and a consumer.

(2.) On 25/5/2014, the respondent instituted a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( "District Forum "), Ahmedabad alleging a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. The complaint states that the respondent had a post-paid mobile connection and was paying an amount of Rs.249.00 as the monthly basic rent. The appellant was providing mobile telecom services to the complainant on the basis of which it was asserted that there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider. The complainant subscribed to an 'auto pay ' system through a credit card issued by his bankers in terms of which, the appellant would receive the payment before the due date to facilitate the timely payment of bills. According to the complainant, the average monthly bill was in the vicinity of Rs.555..00 Copies of the previous bills for five months, until 8/11/2013 were annexed. For the period between 8/11/2013 and 7/12/2013, the respondent was billed in the amount of Rs.24,609.51. According to the respondent, this is an over-charge. The credit limit for the post- paid mobile connection was Rs.2,300.00 until the bill dtd. 8/11/2013, after which the credit limit was increased to Rs.2,800.00 for the bill which was generated on 8/12/2013. The respondent has denied undertaking excessive use of the connection, including towards internet facilities. It was alleged that as a prevalent practice, the mobile service provider must intimate the customer when the bill reaches 80 percent of the credit limit. The complaint contains a recital of the steps which were taken by the respondent by contacting the representatives of the appellant following which he registered a complaint on 22/12/2013. The respondent instituted the consumer complaint on 25/5/2014 seeking compensation in the amount of Rs.22,000.00 together with interest, besides consequential reliefs.

(3.) The appellant raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint based on a judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan and Another (2009) 8 SCC 481 . The District Forum dismissed the application and directed that a written statement must be submitted by the appellant on all issues including on the issue of jurisdiction. It was observed that the appellant, a private service provider is not a 'telegraph authority ' for the purposes of Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraphic Act 1885 ( "Act of 1885 "); however, the issue of jurisdiction could not be determined without the filing of a written statement. In this context, it was observed: