In Matters Concerning Consumer Protection, Jurisdiction Should Accomodate Complainant's Convenience: NCDRC Holds Bharti Airtel Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Bharti Airtel liable for deficiency in service due to issuing duplicate SIM which caused monetary loss to the complaint. The commission also held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Bharti Airtel liable for deficiency in service due to issuing duplicate SIM which caused monetary loss to the complaint. The commission also held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of action arises based on the complainant's convenience.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, a long-time customer of Bharti Airtel Limited/telecom company, faced connectivity issues while stationed in the Gurez Sector, Jammu & Kashmir, with the 13th Sikh Regiment of the Indian Army due to the absence of a mobile tower. During this time, an unknown individual fraudulently obtained a duplicate SIM card for the complainant's mobile number and made unauthorized withdrawals totaling Rs. 2,87,630 from his bank account through online services like Paytm, Airtel Money, Snapdeal, and M Paisa. Despite the fraud, the complainant continued to use his original SIM card at his posting location. The complainant sought a refund from the telecom company, claiming that they issued a duplicate SIM card to a new address in Bihar without his permission, which led to fraudulent transactions. When the telecom company refused to refund the money, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum of Almora. The District Forum allowed the complaint, ordering the telecom company to pay Rs. 2,87,630 with 4% annual interest, Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation, and Rs. 15,000 for litigation costs. The telecom company then appealed to the State Commission of Uttaranchal, which upheld the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction. As a result, the complainant filed a revision petition with the National Commission..
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The telecom company argued that the State Commission correctly determined that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to handle the complainant's case under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 specifies that a complaint should be filed where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of action occurred. The complainant claimed jurisdiction in Almora based on his posting there and possession of the swapped SIM card, citing Section 11(2)(c). However, the telecom company asserted that the complainant failed to provide evidence that the cause of action arose in Almora. The original SIM was issued in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, swapped in Nawada, Bihar, and the complainant's bank account, from which money was allegedly withdrawn, was also in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Therefore, according to the telecom company, Almora had no jurisdiction over any part of the cause of action.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of action arises. Despite the telecom company's nationwide operations, the complainant, an Indian Army personnel posted in Gurez Sector, faced significant hardship due to fraudulent activities linked to a duplicate SIM issued while he was on duty. The District Forum's decision to hear the complaint aligned with principles of substantial justice, considering the practicality for the complainant to seek redress in a forum accessible to him. The commission referenced the case law established in Union of India through General Manager, North East Railway vs. Virender Singh, to emphasize that jurisdiction should accommodate the complainant's convenience, especially in matters concerning consumer protection. Notably, the telecom company's negligent verification processes for issuing the duplicate SIM enabled fraudulent withdrawals totaling Rs.2,87,630 from the complainant's bank account. This failure to verify directly caused financial harm to the complainant.
Consequently, the commission found the telecom company liable for the deficiency in service. Therefore, the commission set aside the State Commission's order and restored the District Forum's decision, affirming the telecom company's responsibility for the complainant's financial loss due to inadequate verification processes for the duplicate SIM issuance.
Case Title: Shyam Kumar Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Case Number: R.P. No. 573/2019