By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            The complainant is a subscriber of Airtel (Bharati Tele Ventures).  The complainant’s cell No. is 9895857486.  The complainant is getting nuisance messages from another subscriber of Airtel.  The messages are nuisance and irritating.  The complainant informed the opposite party office.  Opposite party agreed to warn and disconnect the connection of the troublemaker.  But opposite party did not make any effort.  The complainant had also lodged a complaint in the site of the airtel internet.  Opposite party sent a reply over internet that they have disconnected the phone but the messages continue.  Hence the complainant had filed this petition seeking relief.

            Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted.  Opposite party denies the fact that the complainant had lodged any complaint before the opposite party.  The complainant has not mentioned the number from which he received the alleged obscene messages.  Opposite party is ready to do all the needful.  There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled for the relief.  Petition may be dismissed with cost to opposite party.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition?

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side.

            The complainant’s case is that he had taken a phone connection of the opposite party he was getting obscene messages to his cell No.9895857486.  The complainant had lodged a complaint before the Police Station and also before the opposite party.  The opposite party said that they could not divulge the subscriber’s name who is sending obscene messages to complainant’s cell number but they will definitely disconnect the connection of the trouble maker.  The opposite party did not make any effort in this matter.   The complainant had lodged a complaint in the opposite party’s site in internet also.  Ext.A3 clearly shows that the complainant had informed the opposite party regarding the obscene messages being send to complainant’s phone number.  Ext.A3 also mentions the number from which the messages are sent.  He has mentioned number 9895134742.  Ext.A4 shows that complainant had intimated the opposite party over E.mail.  Ext.A5 is the reply of opposite party-2 to the complainant informing that they have barred the number 9895134742 at the request of the complainant.  Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant was able to use the phone. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party.  The complainant states that even though he could make calls and receive calls and messages there was some implied rights which he could enjoy.  In the deposition of PW1 Page-2 complainant states that “

Implied rights.”  Opposite party has taken a contention that they had disconnected the phone connection of the troublemaking caller after they received the complaint.  From the evidence and the documents the forum has arrived at an opinion that the complainant had to suffer because of the nuisance messages. The complainant had gone through mental agony also.  The stand of opposite party that they have given services to the complainant and likewise many other customers, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  But in this case another caller had misused the service of opposite party.  When the complainant informed about this fact opposite party did not take immediate action.  In our opinion the delay in taking the complainant’s case and acting upon is negligent.  We are of the opinion that there was slight negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite party.  As a result the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party.  Opposite party reported in open court that they have already complied the request of the complainant by disconnecting the cell phone connection of the troublemaker who send obscene messages.  Hence we are restricting the compensation to Rs.1000/-.

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) for the mental agony the complainant had to suffer and also a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Pronounced in the open court this the 22nd  day of May 2009.

                                Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

                        PRESIDENT                                                  MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Letter dt. 22-5-06 sent by the complainant to the Sub Inspector of Police,

       Calicut Town Police Station.

A2.  Letter dt, 23-5-06 sent by the complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Calicut.

A3.  Letter dt. 23-5-06 sent by the complainant to the Airtel, Nadakkavu, Calicut.

A4.  Extract of E-mail message sent by the complainant to the opposite party.

A5.  Extract of the E-mail message received by the complainant from the

        Opposite party.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1.  Sankaran Unni (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

            None.

                                                                        Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

                                    (Forwarded/By order)

                                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.