Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/436/2018

Pankaj Chandgothia Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	436 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	06.08.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	14.01.2022

 

 

 

 

Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, s/o Late Sh.R.S.Chandgothia, Office: SCO 14-15, First Floor, Sector 28-c, Chandigarh 160002, Residence: 120, Sector 7, Panchkula. 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Bharti Airtel Ltd., Chandigarh, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh 160101 through its CEO

2]  Bharti Airtel Ltd., Registered Office:- Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, new Delhi 110070 through its M.D.

3]  Bharti Airtel Ltd., Corporate Office: Airtel Center, Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122001 through its CEO

4]  Google India Pvt. Ltd., Block 1, DivyaSree Omega, Surgey No.13, Kondapur Village, Hyderabad 500084, through its M.D.

5]  Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan (next to Zakir Hussain College), Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road), New Delhi 110002

6]  UIDAI Regional office, SCO 139-141, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Deputy Director General.

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER                         

 

Argued by:-     None for complainant.

Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for OPs No.1 to 3

Sh.Kanwardeep Panjroth, Adv. for OP No.4.

Sh.Varun Issar, Adv. for OP No.6.

OP No.5 exparte.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant is subscriber of Airtel Mobile Nos.9501456699 & 8146856699 (Ann.C-1). It is averred that on 3.8.2018, the complainant was shocked to learn that a number 1800-300-1947 belonging to UIDAI had been incorporate in his contact list, whereas the complainant has not himself saved any such number in his contact list (Ann.C-2). It is also stated that addition of any Data in the personal mobile of any citizen, evidently amounts to encroachment on his person & his rights and it also creates an apprehension that his data is not safe & can be manipulate/altered/used/modified by the OPs at their whims & fancies, without the consent or knowlddge of subscriber.  It is stated that the complainant has not received any notification from OPs regarding addition of said contact number.  It is also stated that the OPs have committed breach of trust by their wrongful actions.  It is submitted that a mobile connection and mobile handset is the personal property of any citizen and no intrusion into his privacy by a third party can be acceptable.  It is also submitted that said act of OPs is an encroachment into the privacy of the complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 3 have filed joint reply.  It is admitted as a matter of record that the complainant is subscriber of their mobile connection. It is stated that there is no loss of any damage to the privacy of complainant on the part of OPs.  It is also stated that the complaint is totally false and there is no question of any type of intrusion by the OPs in the mobile set which is controlled by the complainant.  It is submitted that there is no breach of trust or any type of deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Denying other allegations of complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.        

         OP No.4-Google India Private Limited has filed reply stating that there has been no exchange of consideration for any goods or service between the complainant and Google India, it is neither manufacturer nor the service provider. It is stated that the complainant has alleged breach of trust, which cannot be determined in the instant summary proceedings.  It is also stated that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and answering OP. It is submitted that the complainant raised grievance relating to incorporation of helpline number of UIDAI (OP No.6) in a mobile device working on Android operating system, whereas the Google India is not the manufacturer, seller or service provider of Android operating system or Google/Gmail Accounts.  It is also submitted that the Information Technology, 2000 empowers the adjudicating officer to adjudicate disputes arising out of breaches/liabilities under the said statute and hence this Commission does not have a jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant dispute.  It is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable.  Denying the allegations of complainant, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

         The OP No.5-Telecom Regulatory Authority of India did not file reply.  However, it filed an application seeking deletion from the array of parties stating that it is a statutorily constituted body under The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Act 1997.  It is stated that TRAI does not deal nor is mandated to handle issues related to mobile manufacturing or mobile functioning.  It is also stated that TRAI is not a service provider qua the complainant and that there is no relationship of consumer and a service provider between the complainant and TRAI.  It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts against TRAI, the OP No.5, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

         OP No.6-UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) has filed short reply stating that the present matter pertains to the inclusion of number 1800-300-1947 in his mobile phone without him saving/feeding the same.  It is submitted that the said number is an old defunct number with the new number being 1947 of the answering OP-6, which has been valid for two years and the answering OP has categorically not asked any agency/manufacturer/ provider nor posted its old number in any of the customer’s phone on its own accord. It is stated that UIDAI has released Press Statement dated 3.8.2018 and 5.8.2018 (Ann.I & II) in this regard.  It is pleaded that OP No.4-Google has clarified that UIDAI’s old contact number 1800-300-1947 was added by it “inadvertently” along with police/fire number 112 in 2014 and has since been continuing through sync mechanism.  It is also pleaded that OP No.4 has assured that it will fix this inadvertent error in their next release and stated that the users may, if they wish, can delete the number.  It is further pleaded that earlier also OP No.6 has stated that it was a totally false propaganda and was nothing but scare-mongering against answering OP by vested interests trying to exploit OP No.4’s act to spread misinformation about Aadhaar. It is asserted that the database of the answering OP was nowhere breached and it assures that it’s data remains fully safe and secure and lastly, the OP No.6 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by complainant.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OPs and gone through entire documents & evidence on record including written arguments.

6]       The grievance of the complainant is that Opposite Parties have incorporated some number in his personal mobile contact list by altering his Data without his consent which is an intrusion into his privacy by third party. 

7]       The Opposite Parties in their defence have negated the allegations of the complainant in relation to altering his mobile data or addition of any number therein.

8]       The thorough perusal of the entire documents and evidence on record reveals that the complainant has not been able to establish his allegation as set out in complaint by substantive evidence showing any pilferage of his mobile data. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish any case against the OPs. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.     

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                     

14^th January, 2022                                                    sd/- 

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER