'Consumer fora can hear complaints against telecom companies'

Consumer fora can hear complaints against telecom companies, a district consumer forum here has said, dismissing Vodafone India Ltd's plea opposing the complaint made against it by one of its subscribers.
Vodafone in its application had relied on a Supreme Court ruling of 2009 and contended that section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 provides that a dispute between a telegraph authority and a service user can only be resolved through arbitration and consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to hear such matters.
The North East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rejected the contention saying there is nothing in the apex court's verdict stating that the "immunity" is available to private service providers.

The forum also relied on a 2010 judgement of the Delhi High Court which had said that private service providers or licencees do not fall under the category of telegraph authority.
"On an in-depth perusal of the M Krishnan judgement (of the Supreme Court) it is pertinent to mention there is nothing in it to the effect that it applies to private service providers or licencees as well.By no stretch of interpretation the immunity is available to the licencees or private service providers...
"While arriving at this view, reliance has been placed on the recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in J K Mittal vs Union of India wherein it has been held that section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act is not a bar to the maintainability of a consumer complaint before a Consumer Forum as definition of 'telegraph authority' does not include a licencee per se," a bench headed by N A Zaidi said.

"... The present complaint is not covered by M Krishnan judgement and as such is maintainable before this consumer forum. The application moved by respondent (Vodafone) is accordingly dismissed," the forum said.
Vodafone had opposed the complaint filed by Delhi resident Surender Kumar who had alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the telecom firm for not delivering bills to his correct address and then disconnecting services to his number without his consent.