Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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