Consumer Complaint Against Telecom Companies Maintainable : Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By Vodafone - Idea

The Supreme Court held that consumer complaint against telecom companies is maintainable before Consumer forum/Commission.

The three judges bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed that the existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.

In this case, a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Ahmedabad alleging a deficiency of service on the part of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. The telecom company raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint by placing reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan and Another (2009) 8 SCC 481. The District Forum dismissed this objection holding that a private service provider is not a 'telegraph authority' for the purposes of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. This was later affirmed by State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The issue thus raised before the Apex Court in appeal filed by Vodafone Idea was whether Section 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.  

Under Section 7B, any dispute concerning a telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided has to be determined by arbitration. Such a dispute has to be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either especially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of the disputes under the Section.

Referring to this provision and the definitions of 'service' etc. under Consumer Protection Act, the bench observed:

"In the present case, the existence of an arbitral remedy will not, therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019."

The court disagreed with the view taken in M. Krishnan (supra) that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The court said:

"The decision is incorrect on two grounds. First, it 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. Second, 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."

Yet another contention raised in this case was that the specific incorporation of telegraph services in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is an indicator that it was only as a result of the new legislation that telecom services were brought within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. Rejecting this argument, the bench observed:

This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the specification of services in Section 2(s) of the earlier Act of 1986 was illustrative. This is apparent from the use of the expression 'includes but not limited to'. The specification of services in Section 2(s) of the erstwhile Act was therefore not intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of the services which are comprehended within the definition. On the contrary, by adopting language which provides that the expression 'service' would mean service of any description which is made available to potential users, Parliament indicated in unambiguous terms that all services would fall within the ambit of the definition. The only exception was in the case of (i) services rendered free of charge; and (ii) services under a contract of personal service...

.. The insertion of the expression 'telecom services' in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986. On the contrary, the definition of the expression 'service' in Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services.

Case : Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal |  CA 923 of 2017 | 16 Feb 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
Counsel: Adv Aditya Narain for appellant