Petition No. 284 of 2013. Case: Vodafone India Ltd. Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.. TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Petition No. 284 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Navin Chawla, Advocate and For Respondents: Maneesha Dhir, Abhishek Kumar and Neha Singh, Advocates |
| Judges | Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson), Kuldip Singh and B.B. Srivastava, Members |
| Issue | Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 4 |
| Judgement Date | August 03, 2015 |
| Court | TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal) |
Judgment:
Kuldip Singh, Member
-
The petitioner is seeking recovery of following amounts from the respondent.
-
An amount of Rs. 3,53,71,905/- which, as per the petitioner, is due on account of wrongful deductions made by the respondent from the Interconnection Usage Charge (IUC) for the period between July, 2007 to March, 2010. This amount is with respect to the Cuff Parade Point of Interconnect (POI) between the parties and comprises of a principal amount of Rs. 2,25,15,731 and an interest on account of delayed payment of Rs. 1,28,56,174/-.
-
Another amount of Rs. 7,38,73,066/- which, as per the petitioner, is due to short payments of the IUC by the respondent for the period from August, 2009 to July, 2013. This amount also includes an interest component of Rs. 39,55,201/- An amount of Rs. 45,89,293/- as interest on the above payments till 20.08.2013 and further interest till all these amounts are paid.
-
The petitioner holds a Unified Access Service License (UASL) granted by the Department of Telecom (DOT) under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking providing basic, cellular mobile, etc. services in the areas of Delhi and Mumbai.
-
In order to provide interconnectivity between their subscribers, the parties entered into two interconnect agreements for mobile and fixed/basic services. Copies of these agreements are annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly). In terms of clause 6.4 of these agreements, both the parties are required to pay IUC to each other. The clause reads as under:
6.4 INTERCONNECT USAGE CHARGES
6.4.1. For purposes of calculating the IUC/access charge, the point at which the calls are delivered to/received from MTNL's network is treated as originating point. The calls will be measured from the point of entry to the destination at the IUC prescribed by TRAI.
6.4.2. Both parties will pay IUC (Rate) for calls originated, carried and terminated on each others network in terms the IUC Regulation of TRAI in force from time to time or amended by any judicial or statutory direction.
6.4.3. The traffic delivered on/from any MTNL's Tandem/Local exchange connected to POI from UASP's TAX/Tandem/Local exchange will be measured on the incoming/outgoing junctions of the MTNL's Tandem/Local exchange.
-
It is the contention of the petitioner that though it was raising bills for the IUC in terms of the above agreements, there were short payments for the period between July, 2007 to March, 2010 at the Cuff Parade POI and short payment/non-payment of other bills towards IUC for the period August, 2009 to July, 2013.
-
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 2,25,15,731/- for IUC at Cuff Parade and Rs. 6,49,40,392/-towards other bills for IUC. Only two issues in the petition now survive. One is regarding Rs. 50 Lakhs, which is the balance of principal claimed by the petitioner, and the other is with regard to the interest claimed by the petitioner.
-
With regard to the first issue, we find that during a meeting held between the parties on 29.3.2014, minutes of which are available at page 854 of the paper book, the difference was found to be on account of difference of rounding off policy followed by the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner was requested to share the details about its outgoing traffic with the respondent as per its billing...
To continue reading
Request your trial