This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that on believing the goodwill of the OPs1,2,3 and 4 she applied for a mobile connection with them and has such a prepaid connection bearing No.9433345036 since 2006 with BSNL and recharging the same regularly.  On 08-09-2013 an application for FIR was filed against the complainant at Baranagar Police Station by her husband where he mentioned that he personally had managed to collect the call-list of the complainant’s mobile phone No.9433345036 and found her talking to one person from midnight to dawn everyday and on receipt of the FIR, Baranagar Police Station started a case bearing No.507/13 under Section 493/497/498/379 IPC against the complainant and another person and Sub-Inspector of Police, Baranagar Police Station in his report dated 16-09-2013 on Baranagar P.S. Case No.507/13 submitted to the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore put up the same information that the complainant’s husband collected call-list of his wife.  Therefore, complainant surrendered before the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore on 01-12-2013 and was allowed bail on the same date. 

There is a question raised by the complainant that whether Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. can publicize call list of their customer or whether anyone has either access to or can manage call list of other subscribers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.  So, on 27-01-2014 she wrote through speed post ventilated her grievance to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd./GSM, CTD and requested for photocopy of requisition for disclosure of call-list in respect of her mobile phone number but having no reply by a letter dated 25-02-2014 she brought the matter to the notice of General Manager(CR), BSNL and requested him to reply on the issue.  In this connection she also wrote on 26-02-2014 to the Advisor, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India, Regional Office, Kolkata and Public Information Officer, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones under the Right to Information Act, 2005 expressing her grievance and requested for reply. 

That on 21-03-2014 the AGM(PR & Commercial) & APIO, Calcutta Telephones informed the complainant in reply to her letter dated 11-03-2014 under the Right to Information Act,2005 that reply to her letter dated 27-01-2014 and 25-02-2014 were sent to her through their letter dated 11-03-2014 by speed post and on the complainant’s e-mail but they remained silent on her request to furnish information of requisition and after checking the e-mail box she came to know that the Alternate Nodal Officer, LEA, Calcutta Telephones replied through e-mail that Call Detailed Record of any Mobile number is not provided to any third party/person except to the owner of the Mobile Number and enlisted Law Enforcement Agencies as per their requisition.

Again on 24-03-2014 complainant requested the Dy. Advisor (Comm) & Central Public Information Officer, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to inform about her enquiry and also on 26-03-2014 wrote to Alternate Nodal Officer, LEA, Calcutta Telephones, BSNL expressing her dissatisfaction over the reply of BSNL authority.  On 03-04-2014 the Central Public Information Officer of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India replied that the queries were not concerned with TRAI and her application was transferred to CPIO, BSNL, CO. for necessary action.  Further on 24-04-2014 a letter was sent to the Advisor, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Regional Office, Kolkata and the Central Public Information Officer, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India requesting them for information of specific order/circular regarding restriction to disclosure of call-list and this letter was forwarded by the Sr. Research Officer, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Regional Office, Kolkata to Dy. Advisor (Comm) & CPIO, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on 29-04-2014 and on 02-05-2014 CPIO replied her that the only appropriate authority to reply to her queries are the Department of Telecommunication.  But on 05-05-2014 the AGM (PR & Commercial) & APIO informed the complainant that BSNL, as being a Telecom Service Provider furnish/handover CDR of any Mobile Number, if requested, only to the owner of the mobile or third party after getting consent from the owner of the mobile and to the enlisted Law Enforcement Agencies as per their requisition.

It is specifically mentioned that though the CDR of any mobile number cannot be handover or furnish to any third party without the consent of the owner of the mobile or the enlisted Law Enforcement Agencies as per their requisition then according to complainant’s husband FIR that he managed to collect call list in respect of the complainant’s mobile phone number is an unfair trade practice and clear deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. 

In the circumstances, finding evasive attitude of the OPs for not furnishing quite clear information and failed to provide the complainant satisfactory reply of her grievances and documents after queries complainant filed this complaint.  As the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the OPs and having no proper service from the OPs filed this complaint praying for restriction to publicize call list in respect of the complainant’s mobile phone No.9433345036 any further in future except to requisition by enlisted Law Enforcing Agencies or by the complainant and for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.

On the other hand OPs 1 to 4 by filing written objection have denied all the allegations and assertions made in the complaint.  Complainant made application for connection of new Telephone Line along with her pan card and the said connection was installed in the name of Nandita Acharya and the said connection did not sustain any problem till today.

It is mentioned that on 27-08-2013 one internet request for CDR for Mobile No.9433345036 for the period from 01-06-2013 to 31-07-2013 was received from Special Branch of Kolkata Police by the OPs and in response to that concerned department on 28-08-2013 and 29-08-2013 gave reply in good faith to that queries of the Special Branch of Kolkata Police and the same Branch of Kolkata Police made further requests for CDR in respect of 3 mobile numbers, one is 9433345036 (for the period from 10-08-2013 to till date), second one is 9433937404 (for the period from 10-08-2013 to till date) and lastly 9433355512 (for the period from 10-08-2013 to till date) and the same queries was replied to the concerned Police Authority in good faith on 19-09-2013 and on 13-09-2013 the same Police Authority made further request for the CDR of above three mobile for the period from 25-07-2013 to 12-09-2013 and the said queries were replied properly on 13-09-2013.  Again on 16-09-2013 the said Investigation Authority requested to give the call details of Mobile No.9433345036 for the period from 01-05-2013 to 31-05-2013 and the same was replied on 18-09-2013 and lastly on 01-10-2013 the said Investigation Authority further made request for call details of Mobile Nos. 9433345036 9433937404 and 9433355512 for the period of 01-08-2013 to 15-09-2013 and the same was replied on 01-10-2013.  As per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 it is the duty of the Government Authority to give information to the State Authority as and when they made requests to the Department. 

It is admitted that Complainant wrote a letter to the General Manager, BSNL on 27-01-2014 with an allegation that her call list was provided to any other person without her permission/consent in writing and this letter was replied by the Alternate Nodal Officer, LEA, Calcutta Telephones, BSNL on 11-03-2014 to the complainant with an intimation that CDR of any Mobile number is not provided to any third party except the owner of the Mobile number and enlisted Law Enforcement Agencies. 

It is mentioned that on receipt of letter dated 28-01-2014 of the complainant OPs replied vide letter dated CTD/NODAL/LEA/MISC/2014/ 10 dated 11-03-2014 and was sent through speed post on 18-03-2014 to the address of the complainant but the same was returned by the post office on 22-03-2014 with a comment ‘not known’ and the letter was also scanned and emailed to the customer’s email i.d. on 15-03-2014.

All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and as per the requisition the information was given to the Investigation Authority of Concerned Department they had not done any unfair trade practice and deficient manner of service so the prayer of the OPs to dismiss the case.

Decision with Reasons

Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that he is the holder of a mobile phone connection with the OP as prepaid connection bearing No.9433345036 since 2006 and has been recharging the said connection without any interruption.  That on 08-09-2013 an FIR was lodged against the complainant at Baranagar P.S. where her husband mentioned that he personally managed to collect the call list of her wife’s mobile no.9433345036 and found her taking to one person from midnight to dawn every day.  On receipt of the FIR Baranagar P.S. started a case bearing No.507/13 u/s.493/497/498/379 IPC against the complainant and another person.

          Sub-Inspector of Police, Baranagar in his report dated 16-09-2013 in case of Baranagar P.S. submitted to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore P.S. and placed the same information that complainant husband collected the call list of his wife and complainant surrendered before the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore on 01-12-2013 and allowed bail but now complaint is raised whether BSNL can publicize call list of their customer or whether anyone has either access to or can manage call list of other subscribers of BSNL.  That the complainant in her letter dated dispatched through speed post ventilated her grievance to the General Manager, BSNL and requested for photocopy of requisition for disclosure of call list in respect of her mobile phone number 9433345036 but no reply was received from the BSNL Authority so, complainant brought the matter to the notice of General Manager(CR), BSNL and requested him to reply on the issue vide her letter dated 25-02-2014 and in this regard complainant asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority to know whether any telephone service provide any call list of his customer to anyone else other than the consent of her customer’s clear written consent and that letter was sent on 26-02-2014, but no reply was received from the end of the OPs.  Accordingly, complainant submitted an application as per RTI Act, 2005 to let her know the status of her letter etc. and to provide the complainant a reply and subsequently, the AGM(PR & Commercial) and APIO, Calcutta Telephones by their letter No.CTD/RTI/2013-14/March-06/3 dated 21-03-2014 informed the complainant in reply to her letter dated 11-03-2014 under RTI Act, 2005 that reply to her letters dated 27-01-2014 and 25-02-2014 were sent to her through letter No.CTD/NODAL/LEA/ MISC/2014/10 dated 11-03-2014 by speed post and on the complainant’s e-mail but they remained silent on her request to furnish information of requisition for disclosure of call list in respect of her mobile phone.  That on receipt of letter dated 21-03-2014 of the BSNL Authority on 24-03-2014 the complainant found letter dated 11-03-2014 in her mail box but the complainant averred that the reply was not sent prior to 15-03-2014 because the complainant is in the habit of checking her e-mail box regularly and did not find the reply before 15-03-2014 and further came to learn that Nodal Officer, LEA, Calcutta Telephones replied through e mail that CDR of any mobile number is not provided to any third party/person except to the owner of the mobile and enlisted LEA’s as per their requisition.  So, complainant requested the Dy. Advisor(Com) and CPIO whether BSNL can handover/furnish call list of one customer to anybody else without clear written consent of the customer and provide her with copies of relevant order and Central Public Information Officer of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India reported that in reply to the complainant queries under the RTI Act, 2005 informed the complainant that the queries are not concerned with TRAI and her application was transferred to CPIO, BSNL, Co. for necessary action and in fact, complainant as per allegation against the OPs for publicize her person call details to third party without her consent which is against the ethics of law.  So, OPs has violated the terms and conditions of the rules and regulations of the BSNL and truth is that call list is mentioned above was not requisitioned by Law Enforcement Agency like policy and it is further mentioned that the complainant’s husband in his application dated 08-09-2013 for FIR mentioned that he had managed to collect call-list in respect of the complainant’s mobile phone so, complainant has brought this allegation against the OPs for supplying such call list of her mobile phone to her husband because such an act on the part of the OP is completely illegal and as same was not taken up in Law Enforcing Agency so for negligence and deficient manner of service complainant has prayed for direction of consumer interest at a glance against the OPs and for redressal.

On the other hand OPs1 to 4 by filing a written statement submitted that on 27-08-2013 one internet request for CDR for Mobile No.9433345036 for the period from 01-06-2013 to 31-07-2013 was received from Special Branch of Kolkata Police by the OPs and in replies to the concerned department on 28-08-2013 and 29-08-2013 gave reply in good faith and on 10-09-2013 Kolkata Police made further requests for CDR in respect of 3 mobile numbers, 9433345036 from 10-08-2013 to till date, 9433937404 from 10-08-2013 to till date and 9433355512 from 10-08-2013 to till date and the same queries was replied to the concerned Police Authority on good faith on 19-09-2013 and that on 13-09-2013 further request for the CDR of mobile nos. 9433345036, , 9433937404  and  9433355512 from 25-07-2013 to 12-09-2013 and the said queries were replied properly on 13-09-2013 and on 16-09-2013 the said Investigation Authority requested to give the call details of Mobile No.9433345036 for the period from 01-05-2013 to 31-05-2013 and the same was replied on 18-09-2013 and lastly on 01-10-2013 the said Investigation Authority further made request for call details of three Mobile phone nos. 9433345036 9433937404 and 9433355512 as mentioned above same also replied and all replies were replied on good faith.  So, the practice maintaining of such information as per provision of Telegraph Act and also of the TRAI and Telephone Authority was bound to supply such details.  But anyway the OPs never provided any call list of the complainant or any other person to third party but it was supplied to the police as per instruction and all other allegations made in the compliant is without any basis and without foundation and fact remains against all the letters of the complainant reply was sent by e-mail and it was received but only one occasion same supplied to the postal address to the customer against customer KYC but said was returned back with a mark not known and that letter was also scanned and sent to the e-mail of the complainant on 15-03-2014 and practically the entire complaint is false and fabricated only for harassing the OP this complaint is filed.

On thorough and comparative study of the complaint and the written version including the specific defence of the OP regarding supply of details of call list of three mobile phones including mobile phone of the complainant by the OPs on the requests of the Calcutta Police.  Then as per provision of law that supply of call list by the OP is legal and valid, so in respect of that it can safely be said that as per allegation of the complainant that only lawful authority can get the said details assertion is well proved that means OP only supplied the phone call list details to the Calcutta Police Authority as per their requirements and that is completely legal and OP’s authority is bound to supply the same to the police when police make any requests for supply call list requisition details of any phone then it is clear that there was no illegality on the part of the OPs.  Now, the question is whether complainant has been able to prove that call list details were supplied by the OPs to her husband as per requests of her husband and in fact OP has denied such allegation and complainant has miserably failed to prove that call list details were supplied to the husband but we are not unmindful to the fact that whether husband has his authority to get call list of his wife’s mobile phone or not.  In reality and legally a legal married husband can pray for getting call list details of his wife if he finds that his wife is being disturbed any third party similarly wife can get call list of her husband if it is found that husband is calls for hours together keeping his wife in the kitchen but fact remains from the complaint it is clear that the relationship in between the complainant and her husband is in such a situation that it has come to a stage of irretrievable marriage practice tune which is proved from the fact that her husband already filed a police case against her and her so called friend Debojit Das aged about 28 years before Baranagar P.s. and that case was filed on 08-09-2013 and in that case Debojit Das s/o. Prasanta Kumar Das of 85, Bidhan Nagar, P.S. Baranagar was arrested and awarded bail and this complainant also allowed bail.  No doubt there is pain in the heart of the complainant due to marital breakdown in between her and her husband and now, she has appeared before this Forum to get relief against the BSNL for supplying detail call list of the complainant to her husband but truth is that no detail call list was supplied to her husband but everything was supplied to the police authority and when complainant came to learn that due to supply of details of call list of her mobile phone for long period many person came to learn this fact that lady used to talk with Debojit Das from night hours 12 p.m. to dawn 4 a.m. regularly when it was known she became annoyed and filed this complaint but we feel that with whom a lady shall have to talk for how many hours it is her decision, choice, likings and  with that no doubt this Forum has nothing to do but invariably husband did not bother for which he filed a case against her and no doubt for getting divorce etc. whatever it may be but this is not our concern but only we shall have to decide whether any negligent manner of service has been rendered by the OPs but after thorough discussions of the entire materials legal position and the present facts and circumstances we convinced that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OPs and fact remains that the OPs did not publicly declared the call list of the complainant but it was supplied to the police and same is a part of police investigation record and invariably as complainant, her husband got the copy of the call list of wife and came to learn back history of his wife but we feel that we are not in a position to enter into their conflict in marital life because it is their business but what is that business of the Forum that has already been decided that there is no merit in this case for which the complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without any cost.