VODAFONE IDEA LTD.GJ vs SYED SULTAN JAMIL AND ANR

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 28 July 2026
Cyber Appeal No. 15 of 2018
With MA No. 464 of 2018

Vodafone Idea Limited GJ (Delhi) … Appellant
Vs.
Syed Sultan Jamil and Anr. (Madhya Pradesh) … Respondent

Cyber Appeal No. 4 of 2019

Bank of India … Appellant
Vs.
Syed Sultan Jamil and Ors. (Madhya Pradesh) … Respondent


BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Appellant in CA 15 of 2018 : Ms. Subhalaxmi Sen,
Mr. Kushik Moitra, Ms Hiral Gupta, Advocates
For Appellant in CA 4 of 2019 : Mr Seshagiri Vadalamani,
Ms. Ananya Kukriti, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr Vakul Sharma for R-1 & R-2


Page 1 of 5

JUDGMENT
1. This Cyber Appeal No. 15/ 2018, by Vodafone Idea Limited, Telecom
Service Provider, has been filed against Shri Syed Sultan Jamil,
Respondent No. 1 and Smt. Farah Jamil, Respondent No. 2, under
Section 57 (3) of Information Technology Act, 2000(IT Act), against
Impugned Judgment of Learned Adjudicating Officer/ Principal
Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Department of Science and
Technology, Bhopal in Petition No. 12/ 2017, Shri Syed Sultan Jamil
and Another versus Bank of India and Others, dated 01.10.2018, with
this contention that the Respondents, who were complainant, before
Learned Adjudicating Officer, were not the persons having SIM issued
in their favour by Telecom Service Provider, the then Idea Cellular
Company; rather, the SIM said to be got issued as a duplicate, by using
forged and fictitious documents, were admittedly been issued in the
name of Pushpraj Namdeo and Smt Jav Gazala i.e., else than the
Complainant and there was no Privity of Contract, in between,
Appellant-Telecom Service Provider and the Complainant.

2. This fact was raised by way of reply in above complaint, before
Learned Adjudicating Officer that the duplicate SIM by Idea Cellular
was got issued, after making compliance of the scheduled procedure
for issuing the same, having obtained the identity of document from
the Applicant. The Mobile No. 9826035855 was of Shri Pushpraj
Namdeo and Mobile No. 9826035891 was of Smt. Jav Gazala, and both
Page 2 of 5

of the complainants were not the same, in whose favour, it may be
presumed to have been issued by Appellant, Telecom Service Provider.


3. The facts and evidences, led before Learned Adjudicating Officer, were
not taken into account, and impugned order was got passed, whereby,
the Telecom Service Provider, as well as concerned Bank, which is
Appellant in connected CA No. 4/ 2019, were fastened with the liability
in equal ratio, with imposition of other cost written in impugned
judgment.


4. The Tribunal in CA No. 1/ 2019, Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. Mahakali
Food Private Ltd., as well as CA No. 10/ 2018, Vodafone Idea Limited
Vs. Rajkumar Shreelal Singhee & Ors., had laid down the proposition
of law that, unless there is a Privity of Contract, the liability may not
be imposed, as against Bank or Telecom Service Provider, because of
the fact that there was no contract, in between, nor any rights and
liabilities had accrued, in between. Rather, liability, if any, would have
been in favour of the person, who was the valid cell phone number
subscriber, having obtained SIM from Appellant, Telecom Service
Provider, and who was the party to contract with Bank- Appellant. Any
third party, unless pleaded or appeared in the proceeding, for having
check of their veracity under the anvil of cross examination, may not
be said to be beneficiary or sufferer in above contractual liabilities,
being said to have been accrued without being there any Privity of
Contract, in between.
Page 3 of 5

5. Learned Counsel for Complainant is fair enough to admit this situation
that the real person, in whose favour the SIM card was issued, and
who had entered into agreement with Telecom Service Provider was
not the party in the complaint, filed before Adjudicating Officer.
Rather, the sufferer of above fraud was the complainant, who was
under use of the above SIM card in the banking transaction, as well as
other activities, because of being mere in relation or in capacity of
employee of above real SIM card holder. But, this fact was never
pleaded by complainant, nor the real person, who was issued with the
SIM card, and who had entered into contract and who was the person
having Privity of Contract with Telecom Service Provider, as well as
Bank, nor was added as a party, before Learned Adjudicating Officer.

6. Under above factual circumstances, and the points raised before
Learned Adjudicating Officer, but not taken care of, nor having
addressed by Learned Adjudicating Officer, coupled with the law laid
down by this Tribunal itself, in those previously decided Cyber
Appeals, cited supra, this impugned judgment is of this nature to be
set aside. Thereby, the file is to be remanded back to concerned
Adjudicating Officer, for hearing afresh after amending the complaint,
in light of above observation, having specific mention of the person,
who is having the Privity and the locus of present Complainant, who is
said to be user and looser of the above fraud in the Petition.

Page 4 of 5

7. The matter is to be adjudged after amendment in the complaint,
additional reply in addition to Previous one by Telecom Service
Provider as well as Bank and the evidences led before Learned
Adjudicating Officer.


8. It is noteworthy to mention that the Petition is of year 2017 and 09
years have been lapsed. The sufferer is running from pillar to post,
hence, the expeditious disposal is needed and for this, no unnecessary
adjournment to either side is to be given.

9. Learned Counsels for both side are expected to extend their full
cooperation for getting the matter adjudged by Learned Adjudicating
Officer.

10. With above observation, the impugned judgment is being set aside.
File is being remanded back to Learned Adjudicating Officer for making
disposal as above.

11. Cyber Appeal No. 4 of 2019 is also being allowed as above, because
the main judgment has already been set aside. Hence, the remand
order will apply to this Cyber Appeal too.


….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
28.07.2026
/BN/
Page 5 of 5