SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 1361

2012(2) AllMR 901
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ANOOP V. MOHTA
Vodafone Essar Ltd.
Versus
Raju Sud
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 303 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3264 OF 2009
Decided On : 22-11-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff:Punit B. Anand, Advocate.
For the Defendant:Ms. Mamta Saad along with Ms. R.A. Kesri i/by M/s.Banatwala & Co., Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and reliability of computer generated itemised bills as secondary evidence, based on the relevant legal provisions and TRAI directives.

Headnote:

Computer Generated Itemised Bills - Telecommunication Tariff (Forty Sixty Amendment) Order, 2008, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, TRAI Directives - The judgment discusses the relevance and policy of computer generated itemised bills, TRAI directives, and the binding conditions between the service provider and the user/customer. It highlights the legal provisions related to billing, customer agreements, and the admissibility of computer generated bills as secondary evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff, a mobile service provider, filed a Summary Suit against the Defendant for non-payment of mobile bills. The Defendant raised disputes regarding the charges and the service provider's failure to disconnect services upon request.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Defendant's challenges to the itemized bills and the service provider's actions were not sufficient to dismiss the summons for judgment. It held that the computer generated itemised bills were presumed to be valid and reliable, and the Plaintiff's suit was maintainable.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the itemized bills, the Defendant's liability under the customer agreement, and the admissibility of computer generated bills as evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Telecommunication Tariff (Forty Sixty Amendment) Order, 2008, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and TRAI directives to establish the validity of computer generated itemised bills and the Defendant's liability under the customer agreement.

Final Decision: The court granted conditional leave to the Defendant to defend the suit, subject to depositing a specified amount. It disposed of the Summons for Judgment accordingly.

Judgment :

The Plaintiffs who is service provider has filed this Summary Suit by invoking Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, CPC) based upon computer generated itemized mobile bills.

THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND POLICY OF COMPUTER GENERATED ITEMISED BILLS:

2. The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing Mobile Telephone Services under a Licence Agreement dated 29-11-1994, issued by the Government of India (as amended from time to time), under the terms and conditions set out thereon. Under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Rules 1951, and more particularly Rule 439 thereof, the charges for usage become payable on presentation of a bill. It is necessary for the service provider that the billing system of the licensees should generate the billing information, in adequate details, to ensure satisfaction to the customer about the genuineness of the bill. The bill represents the true extent of the service actually provided by the service provider and also the details about the service conditions, which are available to the subscribers. Some of the purposes of issuing or obtaining the telephone/mobile bills through hard copy, interalia, are to (a) understand and satisfy oneself about the genuineness of the bill; (b) facilitate making of payment; (c) verify the charges incurred by the consumer and (d) monitor usage or expenditure by consumer.

TRAI DIRECTIVES HAVE BINDING FORCE

3. The directions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short, “TRAI”) issued from time to time with regard to the generation of bills have binding force. TRAI issued a Direction vide No. 303-4/2007-QoS, dated the 4th May, 2007 specifying various guidelines as to how the bill should be presented to the consumers and that bill must contain certain useful information to the consumers in addition to the amount of the bill. TRAI has noted that the service providers of other sectors such as Electricity Corporations, Water Utilities services, and Financial Institutions etc., are not charging any amount for providing the hard copy of the bill. TRAI after careful consideration of the provisions relating to billing in the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, License Agreements for Cellular Unified Access, NLD and ILD licenses directed the service providers to provide hard copy of the bill to its postpaid subscribers free of cost.

However, if any customer opts for receipts of the bill through email, instead of hard copy, the service providers can supply the same after obtaining explicit consent from the consumers. In all other cases, the service provider must ensure that the bills are generated and delivered to the consumers in printed form free of cost.

4. The amendment to the principal Tariff Order by the Telecommunication Tariff (Fortysixth Amendment) Order, 2008 incorporates the decision of the Authority that the telecom customers must get the bill in a printed paper form without any extra charge from them. Thus, in compliance thereof, the Plaintiffs generate a bill in a printed paper form and that TRAI by its letter dated 23-06-2011, addressed to all service providers whilst inviting attention to Telecommunication Tariff (Forty-sixth Amendment) Order, 2008, and more particularly para 13 once again directed that bills should be given through email only to the customers who have explicitly opted to receive the bills electronically and in all other cases printed bills should be generated and delivered to the customers in printed form free of cost.

The binding conditions between the service provider & the user/customer.

5. The Plaintiffs submits that the Defendant having declared that he has read and understood the terms and conditions provided overleaf to the Customer Application Form, under clause 4 thereof, the Defendant expressed agreed (a) to make payments for the services on the following basis :-

(A) Payment will be due when HMTL raises the billing statement on the customer;

(i) payment will be made on or before the due dat











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top