CONSUMER FORUM HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT ON TELECOM COMPANIES

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Objects of the Consumer Protection Act

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for short) was enacted to protect the welfare and interest of consumers.  The objects of the Act are as below-

• the right of the consumers to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
• the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
• the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
• the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers' interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;
• the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers;
• right to consumer education.

Complaint

Any consumer aggrieved against the deficiency of  services of the service provider may file a complaint before the Consumer Forum having jurisdiction. 

Section 2(o) of the Act defines the term ‘service’ as service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term ‘deficiency’ as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

If the deficiency of service is proved the Consumer Forum may pass appropriate order and compensation to the consumer and also with costs. 

Complaint on Telecom service

Before 1996 the Department of Telecom only rendered the Telecom Services which are governed by Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  Section 7-B of the said Act provides that except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.  The award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.

Therefore there is no go for the telecom consumers except to refer the disputes to arbitration.  The author, while working in the Department of Telecom, has come across many consumer complaints before the Consumer Forum alleging the deficiency of services of the Department.  Almost all the complaints were dismissed and referred to arbitration to resolve the disputes.  When the Telecom sector is opened to private companies the Act has not been amended suitably as to whether such telecom companies are treated as ‘telegraph authority’ or not. 

In  VODAFONE IDEA CELLULAR LTD. VERSUS AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL [2022 (3) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT], the consumer obtained a post paid mobile connection from the appellant.  The basic monthly rent was ₹ 249/-.  The appellant was providing mobile telecom services to the complainant.  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.

For the period between 08.11.2013  and 07.12.2013, the respondent was billed in the amount of ₹ 24,609.51.  The respondent alleged that the bill is excess and exorbitant.    The credit limit for the postpaid mobile connection was ₹ 2,300 until the bill dated 08.11.2013, after which the credit limit was increased to ₹ 2,800 for the bill which was generated on 08.11.2013.  The respondent  registered a complaint with the appellant on 22.12.2013.

The respondent consumer (‘consumer’ for short) filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (‘DCRF’ for short) against the appellant in the present appeal, which is a telecom company, alleging a deficiency of services on the part of the appellant.  The complaint was filed on 25.04.2014 before DCRF seeking compensation in the amount of ₹ 22,000 together with interest, besides consequential reliefs.

The appellant raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint based on a judgment of a two-Judge Bench of Supreme  Court in GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM VERSUS M. KRISHNAN AND ORS. [2009 (9) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT].  The DCRF 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 is a private company and not a telegraph authority.

Appeal was filed against the order of DCRF before the State Commission.  The appellant contended that the Section 7B of the Act of 1885 provides a statutory remedy of arbitration. In view of the statutory remedy, which is a remedy under a special statute, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is ousted.  The State Commission relied on the letter of the Department of Telecommunication dated 24.01.2014 wherein it was stated that the judgment in M Krishnan (supra) on Section 7B of the Act of 1885 would not be applicable to a private service provider since it is not a ‘Telegraph Authority’.  The State Commission also relied on BHARTI HEXACOM LTD. VERSUS KOMAL PRAKASH [2014 (5) TMI 1217 - THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI] in Revision Petition Application No. 12, in which it was held that for Private Service provider any arrangement is not made in the Telegraph Act regarding Telegraphic Authority are not given to the Service Provider, hence, the Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to hear, decide and dispose of the dispute between the Private service Provider and consumer.

The appellant filed appeal before the National Commission challenging the order of State Commission.  The National Commission held that the DCRF has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.  Against the order National Commission the appellant approached the Supreme Court for remedy.

The Supreme Court considered the contentions of the parties to the appeal.  The principal issue which arises for determination is whether the existence of a remedy under Section 7B of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act.

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions contained in Section 11(1), 2(o) and 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Section 11(1) describes the nature of jurisdiction of DCRF.   The District Forum was conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed did not exceed a stipulated amount.  A service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision.

The Supreme Court further observed that the remedy of arbitration under the Act is of a statutory nature, would not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The Act and its successor, the Act of 2019 are subsequent enactments which have been enacted by Parliament to protect the interest of consumers. Hence, an ouster of jurisdiction cannot be lightly assumed unless express words are used or such a consequence follows by necessary implication.

The Supreme Court was unable to subscribe to the view which has been adopted in the decision in M. Krishnan (supra) because the said judgment-

• failed to recognize that the Act of 1986 is not a general law but a special law that has been enacted by Parliament specifically to protect the interest of consumers; and
• even if it is assumed that the Act of 1986 is a general law, it is a settled position of law that if there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even if general in nature, would override an earlier special law.

The said judgment also fails to notice that Section 3 of the Act of 1986 clearly provides that the remedies available under the Act are in addition to the remedies available in other statutes and the availability of additional remedies would not bar a consumer from filing a complaint under the Act.    The remedies available under the provisions of the Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the Act.

Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the National Commission by holding that the District Forum is having jurisdiction on the complaint against the appellant telecom company and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.