Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Union of India - (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) (11 Mar 2016)

Name of person selling SIM card not required on form

MANU/TD/0010/2016

Media and Communication

Customer Acquisition Forms for acquiring a SIM card, completed at the Point of Sale, do not require the name of the person verifying the document.

The Department of Telecom had levied penalty on Vodafone for not including the name of the ‘authorised person’ at the Point of Sale who verifies the documents provided by a person to procure a SIM card. Vodafone instead contended that at the time of issue of SIM card to the subscriber, only the name of the Point of Sale had to be stamped on the Customer Acquisition Form. Requiring the names of individual employees would serve little purpose.

The Tribunal accepted Vodafone’s arguments that the Department had levied a penalty only on a new interpretation of the guidelines. Even the Department’s Circular requiring telecom operators to maintain a database of subscribers did not ask for the name of an authorised person. It surmised, “what matters is the correct verification of the documents relating to the identity and address of the subscriber. In case of wrong verification, the [Point of Sale] at which the lapse happened can be identified and suitable action taken against it. We do not understand how the name of a particular employee would help”.

Tags : TELECOM OPERATOR   SUBSCRIPTION FORM   POINT OF SALE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved