NCDRC Upholds District Forum’s Jurisdiction in Fraudulent SIM Duplication Case

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has overturned a State Commission’s order, reaffirming the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA), 1986, in a case involving fraudulent SIM card duplication. The decision highlights the importance of accessible justice for consumers, particularly military personnel, and holds Bharti Airtel liable for a deficiency in service due to negligent verification procedures.

Brief Facts of the Case

Shyam Kumar, an Indian Army soldier posted in the remote Gurez Sector of Jammu & Kashmir, had been using a Bharti Airtel SIM card for five years. In May 2017, while experiencing connectivity issues, an unknown individual fraudulently obtained a duplicate SIM card for Kumar’s number. This led to the unauthorized withdrawal of over ₹2,85,000 from Kumar’s bank account. Kumar filed a complaint with the District Forum in Almora, which ruled in his favor. Bharti Airtel appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Kumar then filed a revision petition with the NCDRC.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the State Commission adopted an overly technical stance, ignoring the nationwide presence of the telecom provider. As an Army personnel serving the nation, Kumar should have the right to file a complaint at his place of posting. The complaint was maintainable as Bharti Airtel has area offices nationwide.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent contended that the State Commission was correct in deciding that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 11 of COPRA, 1986. They argued that no cause of action occurred in Almora, where the complaint was filed. Additionally, they maintained that the newly amended COPRA, 2019, did not apply to this case as the proceedings had already undergone two rounds of litigation under the 1986 Act.

Observations of the Court

The NCDRC carefully examined the orders of the lower forums and relevant legal precedents. It noted that Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides a broad basis for determining jurisdiction. The Commission emphasized the principles of substantial justice, considering the nationwide presence of the telecom company and the hardship faced by the complainant as an Army personnel. The NCDRC also observed significant discrepancies in the documentation used for issuing the duplicate SIM, indicating a clear lack of due diligence by the telecom company. The Commission referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd. and Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, as well as the NCDRC’s previous orders in Shanti v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., to support its interpretation of jurisdiction and consumer rights.

Decision of the Court

The NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s order, restored the District Forum’s decision, and allowed the revision petition. The Commission held Bharti Airtel liable for deficiency in service and directed the company to pay ₹2,87,630 to the complainant Shyam Kumar along with ₹1 lakh in compensation and ₹15,000 in litigation costs.

Case Title: Shyam Kumar vs. Bharti Airtel
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 573 OF 2019
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Anup Jain
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kaushik and Mr. Arpit Shrivastava
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

This landmark decision underscores the NCDRC’s commitment to ensuring consumer justice, particularly for vulnerable groups like military personnel, and reinforces the accountability of telecom companies in safeguarding consumer interests.