Larger Bench Of National Commission Should Decide Whether Telephone Service Operators Like Vodafone Can Be Dragged To Consumer Forum: Calcutta HC

The High Court of Calcutta on Tuesday directed the formation of a larger Bench to decide whether a dispute between a consumer and a private basic or cellular telephone service operator is covered under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and hence, out not to be decided by the consumer forum.

The Court, however, upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 13(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, relying on an earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Vishwabhuthi House Building Co-operative Society & Ors.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., challenging the vires of Section 13(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the ground that the provision ousts principles of natural justice. Section 13 of the Act prescribes the procedure for admission of a complaint, and Section 13(3) states that no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub- sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.

The State had, on the other hand, submitted that the provision does not state that principles of natural justice are not required to be adhered to. It was further submitted that, in any event, it is possible for the legislature to limit the applicability of the principles of natural justice.

Agreeing with such contentions, Justice Debangsu Basak upheld the validity of Section 13(3), and observed, “The principles of natural justice or its applicability have not been ousted by the sub-section. It contemplates that the adherence to the procedure under Section 13(1) and 13(2) would be compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Courts have intervened in respect of orders of the forai, if any order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and demonstrated to be so. Recruitment of an order to have reasons is held to be a facet of natural justice. An order of the forum uninformed with reasons is interfered with by courts. It cannot be said that, the orders of the forum acting under the provisions of the Act of 1986 are immune to judicial scrutiny as to its adherence to the principles of natural justice by virtue of Section 13(3).”

The Court, however, set aside an order under challenge, wherein the President, National Commission had refused to constitute a larger Bench to decide the challenge to maintainability of the complaint against Vodafone. The maintainability was challenged on the ground that a dispute between consumer and a private basic or cellular telephone service operator is covered under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and hence, out not to be decided by the consumer forum.

Directing the formation of a larger Bench, the Court observed that the administrative order refusing to constitute a larger bench, despite orders by the National Commission, was passed by the President of the Commission without jurisdiction.

Read the Judgment here.