The Supreme Court today issued notice to Tata Teleservices on a TRAI plea challenging a TDSAT order that had allowed the telecom company to utilise more than Rs 1.73 crore it had allegedly collected in excess from consumers to repay its acess deficit charges to BSNL.
A bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir also restrained Tata Tele from withdrawing the amount, lying in an escrow account.
The court ordered that the amount "deposited in the separate account shall not be removed".
TRAI has challenged the TDSAT order that held that TTL was entitled to change any aspect of the tariff and need not return the excess amount collected from consumers that can be used for paying the ADC.
According to the regulator, TDSAT had set aside its directions that had asked TTL to refund unconditionally the entire excess amount of more than Rs 1.73 crore, kept in a separate account, collected from the subscribers.
TRAI senior counsel Harish Salve and Sanjay Kapur sought to restrain TTL from withdrawing the amount, which lie frozen in the escrow account, and clear off its dues to BSNL.
It alleged that TTL had increased tariff in clear violation of the six-months protection given to consumers as mandated by the tariff order.
According to the telecom regulator, TTL had in February 2006 unilaterally and without a just cause had increased the tariff before the expiry of the six months period from the date of enrolment of such subscribers in violation of the 31st Amendment to the Telecommunication Tariff Order, 2004.
The 2004 Order prohibits any such alteration or change within the initial period of six months.
The tribunal had allowed the service provider to retain the "undue and unjust enrichment it had made by avoiding payment of ADC during the relevant period and pass on the burden to the subscribers", the petition said.
And this had resulted in allowing TTL to pass on its own ADC liability to the unwary consumers by suddenly raising the tariffs, the petition added.
TRAI further said that the payment of ADC did not depend on the realisation of such ADC from the consumers as the Tribunal itself had observed that the service provider might as a business decision decide to absorb such liability.
"The payment of ADC was an obligation on the service provider at all times," it added.
Stating that TDSAT had usurped the role of a law maker, TRAI said the access provider had been permitted to ignore and violate the provisions of tariff order, and its directions of January 18 last year which aimed at protecting the interests of consumers and ensure compliance of terms and conditions of the license.
TTL had moved the tribunal challenging TRAI's directions asking it to refund the excess amount.
