Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 102
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Aftab Alam, CJ, Kuldip Singh, J
Bharti Airtel Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Petition No. 617 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Chattopadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Advocate, Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Advocate
The Tribunal ruled that charges for call termination without CLI were incorrect and that the interest claimed was also invalidated due to the respondent's failure to adhere to statutory limitation periods.
Headnote:(A) Indian Telegraph Act - Section 4 - Interconnect Agreement - Dispute regarding Interconnect Usage Charges and demands for interest - The petitioner claims refund of Rs. 1,01,55,734/- paid under protest for incorrect charges while the respondent seeks interest of Rs. 79,63,785/- on the disputed amount. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 37)
(B) Limitation - The demand raised by the respondent for the amounts was found time-barred according to the limitation periods outlined in the case. (Paras 16, 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having a license under the Indian Telegraph Act, disputes the demand for Interconnect Usage Charges from the respondent for certain months, alleging wrongful billing of charges for calls without CLI leading to higher rates being applied. (Para 1, 4, 24)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled that the charges imposed were incorrect due to the non-receipt of CLI not being attributable to the petitioner, quashing the demand for interest and directing a refund of the amount paid. (Paras 36, 37)
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is liable for the charges imposed for non-CLI calls; (ii) The validity of the interest claimed by the respondent; (iii) Whether the original demand is barred by limitation. (Paras 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent failed to demonstrate fault on the petitioner’s part regarding the non-receipt of CLI, and the demand for interest was also rejected due to the contentious nature of the billing history. (Paras 25, 35)
Result: The impugned demands for interest were quashed, and the respondent was ordered to refund the amount paid under protest. (Para 37)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. demand for interconnect usage charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. timeliness of payment and dispute (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. correctness of charges for non-cli calls (Para 24 , 25 , 31) |
| 4. ruling on interest and refund (Para 36) |
| 5. conclusion of the judgment (Para 37) |
JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh:
The dispute in the present petition pertains to demand for certain Interconnect Usage Charges raised by the respondent on the petitioner for the months of August 2006, September 2006 and April to June 2007. The petitioner is claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 1,01,55,734/- on account of amount paid under protest against this demand. It is also aggrieved by the further demand of interest by the respondent amounting to Rs. 79,63,785/- demanded vide impugned letters dated 19.07.2012, 25.07.2012 and 16.08.2012.
Facts of the case
2. The petitioner has been granted a license under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act to provide Cellular Mobile Telephone Services (CMTS) in the service area of Gujarat Telecom Circle. It entered into an Interconnect Agreement with the respondent on 12.01.2002, which was subsequently amended and updated vide addenda dated 19.07.2005.
3. Chapter 6 of the interconnect agreement between the parties provides for interconnect charges. Clause 6.4 of the same provides for Access charges. Sub- clause 6.4.1 reads as under :
“Access Charges shall be payable by CMTS Provider to BSNL for the calls originating in CMTS Provider network and terminating in BSNL network. There shall not be any access charge for the calls originating in BSNL network and terminating in the CMTS provider network.”
Sub-clause 6.4.2 provides that access charges payable by CMTS provider to BSNL shall be as per standard tariff plan of TRAI, as applicable from time to time.
As per existing arrangement between the parties, the following access charges were to be paid :
| S. No. | SLAB | Rate/ Min (Rs.) |
| 1. | CMTS to basic, ISPs, pagers, Level I services like 131, 141 etc in same SDCA and Intra circle STD (except emergency services & VAS) | 0.50 |
| 2. | CMTS to emergency services (100, 101 and 102) of BSNL | 1.20 |
| 3. | International roaming to basic, ISPs, – CMTS pagers, Level I services like 131, 141 etc in same SDCA and Intra circle STD (except emergency services & VAS) | 3.75 |
| 4. | International roaming CMTS to emergency services (100, 101 and 102) of BSNL | 4.45 |
| 5. | National roaming – CMTS to basic, ISPs, pagers, Level I services like 131, 141 etc in same SDCA and Intra circle STD (except emergency services & VAS) | 0.80 |
| 6. | National roaming CMTS to emergency services (100, 101 and 102) of BSNL | 1.50 |
| Srl No. | Billed Month | Amount |
| 1 | March – 06 | 0041152.00 |
| 2 | April – 06 | 0010375.00 |
| 3 | May – 06 | 0025635.45 |
| 4 | June – 06 | 0013496.45 |
| 5 | July – 06 | 0045880.00 |
| 6 | August -06 | 1430833.00 |
| 7 | September – 06 | 1539796.00 |
| 8 | October – 06 | 0883541.00 |
| 9 | Nov – 06 | 0016562.00 |
| 4007270.90 |
The above charges were inclusive of the termination charge of 30 paise per minute which was as per the regulation of TRAI.
4. The dispute pertains to the Anand Point of Interconnect (POI), Gujrat. On 19.03.2007, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent demanding Rs. 40,07,270.90 on account of outstanding revenue share charges for national and international roaming traffic terminating at the respondent’s network. The letter is as under :
“Sub : payment of outstanding revenue share charges for national and international roaming traffic terminating at the BSNL’s network.
Since BSNL has filed an appeal in the H’ble TDSAT against decision dated 11.09.06 of TRAI, you have to pay the revenue share on roaming traffic at the prescribed rate already billed by this office. In view of the above, it is requested to release the withheld amount by 25.03.07 as per details below :
In case of non-payment of such revenue share action as applicable in the case of non-payment of IUC bill shall be initiated by BSNL.”
5. This letter was replied by the petitioner on 23.03.2007 stating that the respondent has wrongly charged this amount of Rs. 40,07,270.90 as the petitioner had deducted only
