Back
2008(1) CPR 276
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President; Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor(Retd.) and Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
M/s. Spice Communications Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Ruchika Bhatia —Respondent
Appeal No. 758 of 2007
Decided on 23.1.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Sh. Sunil Bhatia, father of Ms. Ruchika Bhatia, in person
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)(o) —Deficiency in service—Telephone—Disclosure of call details—Complaint with regard to grievance pending with TRAI—Entertainment of complaint by District Consumer Forum—Propriety—Held, this is an additional remedy provided to consumer under Consumer Protection Act. (Para 7)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)(o) —Deficiency in service—Telephone—Disclosure of call details—Complainant alleged disclosure will have bearing on her pending divorce case—No categorical finding requires to be given whether disclosure will have material bearing on the divorce case—But still OPs appellants cannot be allowed to disclose information without knowledge of the consumer as it clearly violates the rights. (Para 7)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(d),(g) and(o) —Deficiency in service—Telephone—Locus standi—Appellant challenged locus standi of respondent as mobile connection in question was not in her personal names but was given as a corporate connection to her employer ICICI Bank—Held, it has not been urged by the appellant that phone in question though issued as a corporate connection was not for personal use of employees of bank. (Para 7)
(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) and(o) —Mobile phone—Disclosure of call details—Whether amounts to violation of right to privacy? Held, contention of appellant that the right to privacy would have been violated only if it was a case for phone tapping cannot be accepted—Privacy of a person cannot be stated to have been interfered with only phone tapping. (Para 7)
(v) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)(o) and 15—Deficiency in service—Telephone—Disclosure of call details—Respondent had set up a case that she underwent a lot of harassment as disclosure of call details would be detrimental to her interest in the divorce proceedings—Appellant contending that District Forum failed to appreciate as to how a divorce case under FIR as alleged by complainant could be filed—Held, whether divorce case could be filed under FIR or not was not the issue before the District Forum—The point in issue was a consumer dispute with regard to deficient services as unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. (Para 7)
Facts of the Case:
This appeal has been filed against order dated 9.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in complaint case No. 490 of 2007
Respondent complainant was subscriber of mobile telephone services provided by appellant/OP and was issued mobile No. 9814040246 which was given as corporate connection of ICICI Bank on September 2003. The bills for same were sent at ICICI Bank address.
Complainant filed seeking compensation on account of deficient services on the ground that OP leaked details of calls made by her from mobile in question which had adverse effect on her divorce proceedings pending in an Ambala Court. This cause her mental harassment.
The complaint was accepted by District Forum and OP was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,5000s cost of litigation with interest @ 9% if amount is not paid within 30 days.
Hence this appeal assailing the said order mainly on the ground that TRAI set up under the statute to regulate conduct of telephone operators was seized of the matter, connection was in the name of ICICI Bank and not in personal name of complainant, hence she lacked locus standi to file complaint and that it was not a case of phone tapping which only violates right to privacy of an individual.
Findings of the Commission:
Well reasoned order of District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity on account of appreciation of facts, perusal of record or application of case law and same deserves to be upheld in toto.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Devinderjit Dhatt, Member—This appeal has been filed against order dated 9.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in complaint case No.490 of 2007. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. The respondent complainant was subscriber of mobile telephone services provided by the appellant/OP and was issued mobile No. 9814040246 the same having been given as a corporate connection of ICICI Bank on September, 2003. The bills for the same were also dispatched at the address i.e. ICICI Bank, SCO No.137, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana and the payment of the bills raised by the OPs was either through salary account No. 001301503144 or cash, copy of which has been brought on record vide annexure A. As per averments, the respondent complainant surrendered her connection on 29.4.2006 on account of her transfer to Noida Branch. The complainant has averred that she was contesting a divorce case at Ambala and the appellant company has been alleged guilty by the complainant on account of leakage of her mobile telephone details on 4.5.2006 for the period 1.2.2006 to 30.4.2006 as the same was done without her knowledge. It is further alleged by the respondent complainant that this leakage of details has caused her mental and social harassment and the OPs are guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice by disclosing the details of her calls as submitted above. The complainant asked for an explanation from the OPs on this account, however no reply was received by her. In the prayer clause, she sought a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000 for harassment, mental agony and the damage caused to on account of pending divorce case. Further the prayer states that the costs of the complaint and any other relief that the Forum may deem fit also be awarded in her favour.
3. In reply to the complaint, the preliminary objection taken is that since the complainant has failed to disclose as to what cause of action has accrued in her favour against the OPs, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground. It is alleged that complaint is false and vexatious and it deserves to be dismissed with costs under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further stated that since the complainant has already instituted a complaint against the answering OP before TRAI which is competent authority to regulate the telecom services and TRAI has already taken cognizance of the matter in hand and showed notice to the OP, this complaint cannot be entertained by the Forum since the statutory authority under which the OP is rendering services is already seized of the matter. It is further submitted that since it has been admitted by the complainant that disputed connection belongs to ICICI Bank, she has no locus standi to file the complaint as the connection was not given to her.
In reply on merits, it is denied that complainant is consumer of the OPs since the connection was given to ICICI Bank, hence only bank is competent party to raise the grievance, if any. Other averments of the complaints have been denied. In reply to para No.3 it is stated that no divorce case can be filed under F.I.R. It is further denied the main averment of the complainant that any of the call details were ever leaked to anybody. It is submitted that a request for the duplicate bill was made and the same was sent to ICICI Bank on 21.5.2007. However the complainant approached TRAI against it and during the investigation of the matter, it came to the surface that ICICI Bank has never made any request for issuance of call details, on account of this the matter was kept under further investigation. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed with malicious intentions as the call details cannot be said to impose any hurdles in the litigation or result in causing mental and social harassment, as the details pertain to telephone numbers contacted through mobile phone at a particular time. The allegation of unfair trade practice has b
