2014 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 52
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MR. AFTAB ALAM, CJ, MR. KULDIP SINGH, J
M/s Videocon Telecommunication Ltd. (Orissa) – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Petition No. 10 of 2013 | Petition No. 11 of 2013 | Petition No. 12 of 2013 | Petition No. 13 of 2013 | Petition No. 14 of 2013 | Petition No. 15 of 2013 | Petition No. 16 of 2013 | Petition No. 344 of 2013 | Petition No. 345 of 2013 | Petition No. 137 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocate, Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate
For Petitioner – SSTL (P.No.137/2013):Mr. Mansoor Ali Shoket, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Dhawan, Advocate
For Respondents:Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Advocate, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Jain, Advocate, Ms. Neha Singh, Advocate
The failure to sign contractual addenda does not negate the existence of a binding agreement, as acceptance can be inferred from conduct and correspondence.
Headnote:(A) Telecommunications Act - Relevant provisions relating to Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) for emergency calls and clauses from agreements between service providers. (Para 10)
(B) The need for mutual agreements in contractual obligations between service providers and BSNL. (Para 30)
(C) Issues surrounding unilateral decisions and general practice in telecommunication arrangements. (Para 4)
(D)
Issues: The core issues addressed by the Tribunal include the enforceability of charges imposed via addenda not signed in respective circles and the obligations arising from contractual agreements. (E)
Findings of Court:
The court noted the failure of the petitioners to execute addenda led to model scenarios for establishing a binding contract, confirming the dues owed under said agreements. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The non-signing of Addenda II does not negate the understanding of a mutual agreement; rather, acceptance can occur through conduct and repeated correspondence. (G)
Result: All petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
By AftabAlam, Chairperson –
This batch of ten petitions challenges the demands made on M/s Videocon Telecommunications Limited,
Nine out of the ten petitions comprising the batch are filed by Videocon which relate to different service areas/circles. The remaining one petition (Petition no. 137 of 2013) is filed by Sistema. A tabular summary of the ten petitions is given below for the sake of convenience:
| S.No. | Name of the Petitioner | Petition No. | Circle | Date of Invoice and Period of demand | Total Amount |
| 1 | Videocon | 10 of 2013 | Orissa | 17.10.2012 (24.07.2010 – 31.03.2013) | Rs.32,12,880/- |
| 2 | Videocon | 11 of 2013 | U.P.East | ( (a) 11.09.2012 – (24.07.2010 – 23.07.2011) b) 11/09.2012 – (24.07.2011 – 31.03.2012) Total | R Rs.11,23,600/- s.8,50,989/- |
| Rs.19,74,589/- | |||||
| 3 | Videocon | 12 of 2013 | Maharashtra | ( (a) 18.07.2012 b) 30.08.2012 Total | R Rs.11,23,600/- s.21,70,887/- |
| R s.32,94,487/- | |||||
| 4 | Videocon | 13 of 2013 | Karnataka | ( (a) 24.08.2012 b) 05.09.2012 Total | R Rs.25,76,277/- s.7,63,586/- |
| R s.33,39,863/- | |||||
| 5 | Videocon | 14 of 2013 | Rajasthan | 06.09.2012(24.07.2010 – 31.03.2013) | Rs.32,09,494/- |
| 6 | Videocon | 15 of 2013 | Assam | 07.12.2012 (18.09.2010 – 31.03.2013) | Rs.31,62,130/- |
| 7 | Videocon | 16 of 2013 | Bihar | 13.12.2012 | Rs.23,28,776/- |
| 8 | Videocon | 344 of 2013 | J&K | 08.01.2013(14.07.2010 – 31.03.2013) | Rs.29,65,233/- |
| 9 | Videocon | 345 of 2013 | North East | 17.12.2012(21.07.2010 – 18.01.2013) | Rs.30,29,687/- |
| GRAND TOTAL | Rs.2,65,17,139/- | ||||
| 10 | Sistema Shyam | 137 of 2013 | Delhi | 1 1 0 18.02.2013(25.07.2010 – 24.07.2011) 8.02.2013(25.07.2011 – 24.07.2012) 8.02.2013(25.07.2012 – 31.03.2013) 1.04.2013(01.04.2013 – 31.03.2014) GRAND TOTAL | R R R Rs.11,23,600/- s.12,35,960/- s.8,46,548/- s.13,59,556/- |
| R s.45,65,664/- |
All the petitions arise from similar facts and raise the same questions of law.
Hence, all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
During the period to which the demands relate, both Videocon and Sistema had Unified Access Services Licences for all the twenty two (22) service areas/circles in the country. Under the licence, the two petitioners, like all other holders of UAS licence, were mandated to provide for their mobile phone subscribers seam-less access to emergency public utility service, e.g., police, fire, ambulance etc. The relevant provision in this regard is contained in clause 29.1 of the UAS licence which is as under:
“ 29. Emergency and Public Utility Services:
29.1 The licensee shall provide independently or through mutually agreed commercial arrangements with other Service Providers all public utility services including TOLL FREE services such as police, fire, ambulance, railways/road/air accident enquiry, police control, disaster management etc. While providing emergency services such as police, fire, ambulance etc. it shall be ensured that such calls originated shall be delivered to the control room of the concerned authority for the area from where call is originated.” (emphasis added)
It needs to be noted here that the countless police stations/control rooms, fire stations, health-care centres, accident enquiry centres and the disaster management centres all over the country are predominantly serviced by fixed lines. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that, for historical reasons, it is BSNL alone that is in position to effectively provide access to the fixed line telephones installed and managed by it at all