Delhi HC directs consumer court to work within its jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court today directed the cellular operators to ensure that the unsolicited commercial calls (UCC) made by the companies or banks are reduced and eventually ended.

A bench comprising Justice Badar Durrez Ahmad and Justice Veena Birbal asked the cellular operators to follow the guidelines laid down by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in this regard.

The lawyer appearing on behalf of TRAI told the court that there is a do not call(DND) register which is being maintained by the Government run National Informatics Centre (NIC), and consumers who do not wish to receive such calls can register themselves with it.

The court also expunged the adverse remarks passed by the consumer court against TRAI as it was not even a party in the case.

The Court in its draft order today reversed an order of the State Consumer Commission passed in January 2006 which had directed the telecom operators to deposit Rs 50 lakhs as punitive damages in the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’.

‘There is no such provision in the consumer act to charge Punitive damages , at the most it can charge Rs 10,000 that too should be paid to the affected consumer and cannot be used for other purposes’, the bench held.

The High Court said that the Consumer courts, whether State commissions or National Commission should not exceed their limits and pass such orders which are beyond their jurisdiction and outside their purview.

‘ You (consumer courts) cannot draft a legislation and make rules, the court held.

The Court also cancelled the order of consumer commission which directed that each consumer should be paid Rs 25,000 as compensation if he receives an unsolicited business call.

‘The damages granted by the consumer courts are always proportionate to the amount of harassment a consumer has suffered and can vary from case to case. How can the court fix a certain amount to be paid without assessing the real damage? This will result in fake litigation.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Cellular Operators Association which challenged the State Consumer Commission order passed in January 2006 in favour of Nivedita Sharma, who is a lawyer and had received an unsolicited business call by a bank.

The Consumer court had directed the ICICI Bank, and Airtel Company to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to her for harassment.

Finding that similar calls are being made to consumers the court had passed orders that TRAI and ICICI Bank to pay Rs 50 lakh as penalty and deposit in the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’.

The court will give its final verdict on January 8 as to how should the compensation amount should be spent.