Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/116/2016

Charanjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	116 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.04.2016
Date of Decision		20.04.2016

 

Charanjit Kaur daughter of Manohar Singh, resident of House No.380/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Idea Cellular Limited (Erstwhile Spice Communication Ltd.) Regional Office, SCO No.495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

 

2. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. (Erstwhile Spice Communication Ltd.) C-105, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Nodal Officer.

 

3. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. (Erstwhile Spice Communication Ltd.) A Company registered under the Companies Act, having its Registered Office at Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhi Nagar 382 011 (Gujarat) through its Managing Director.

 

….. Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

4. Manu Kapur son of Sh.Om Parkash, presently residing at House No. 3028, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

Second Address:-

Manu Kapur, P.A. to Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana School Education and Information Technology Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Room No.44, 8^th Floor, Sector 1, Chandigarh.

….. Performa Respondent/Respondent No.4

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Vivek Mohan, Advocate for the appellant.        

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it dismissed a complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), on a ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation.

2.       In brief, it was case of the appellant that in the year 2010, she had filed a complaint, regarding sexual harassment, against respondent No.4, to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, on 08.06.2010. For looking into grievance of the appellant, a Departmental Committee was constituted. On 13.09.2011, respondent no.4 placed on record his written arguments, alongwith a copy of mobile call details of the appellant, for the period from 22.02.2010 to 22.06.2010. Copy of the call details was procured by respondent no.4, without her consent, and in violation of Rules/Regulation by respondents no.1 to 3, to maintain secrecy qua calls made. When despite making request, copy of the call details was not given to the appellant, by the concerned Authority, she got the same on 04.12.2012, from the Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereafter, the appellant raised the issue, many a times, with respondents no.1 to 3, telling them that her privacy has been violated, as copy of her call details was supplied to respondent no.4, in violation of Rules/Regulations. When no action was taken up by respondents  no.1 to 3, she sent a legal notice dated 25.09.2014 to them, seeking action against respondent no.4 and also their erring Officials, who have breached her privacy. When nothing was done, stating that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of respondents, consumer complaint bearing no.567 of 2014 was filed by the appellant, before the Forum, on 05.11.2014.
3.       Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of respondent no.4, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against exparte, by the Forum, vide order dated 13.05.2015.
4.       Respondents no.1 to 3, in their joint written reply filed before the Forum, admitted that the appellant was their customer and had been using postpaid mobile services. It was denied by them that they ever supplied call details of the appellant, to anybody including respondent no.4. It was specifically stated that the consumer complaint have been filed beyond the period of limitation, and as such, needs to be dismissed, on this ground alone.
5.       In the rejoinder filed by the appellant, she reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of respondents no.1 to 3.
6.       The appellant and respondents no.1 to 3, led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing Counsel for the appellant, respondents no.1 to 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.   
8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant
9.       We have heard Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

            It is not in dispute, and as has been stated by the appellant herself that she had come to know that copy of her call details, was placed on record, by respondent no.4, before a Committee constituted, at her instance. The said respondent had produced the same (copy of her calls details), on 13.09.2011. It is her case that she, many a times, asked the said Committee to supply her, copy of her calls details, however, it was not done. She got the said copy, by invoking the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, on 04.12.2012, from the Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Haryana.

            The present complaint was filed before the Forum, on 05.11.2014. By noting above said facts, the Forum rightly observed as under:-

 

“9]        The complainant in his complaint has pleaded that she made a request vide letter dated 13.9.2011 and 20.10.2011 to the concerned Committee to supply the copy of the same, which she failed to get.  But the complainant has not placed on record the copy of any such letter.  The complainant further claimed that she had to apply for the documents filed by Opposite Party NO.4 in the above said enquiry on 13.9.2011 by moving an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act and was supplied the same on 4.12.2012 by the Office of State Public Information Officer, Deputy Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Secretariat Establishment, vide Memo No.19/37/2006-3E-II, dated 4.12.2012 (Ann.C-3).  After that the complainant issued legal notice 25.9.2014.

 

10]        The complainant claimed that she approached OPs No.1 to 3 numerous times through telephonically as well as personally, complaining about the disclosure of her personal information to third person and sought necessary action be taken against the erring official.  But again nothing in respect of these averments has been placed on record by the complainant.  It is only the legal notice issued in the year 2014 that the complainant raised her grouse against OPs No.1 to 3 and after that filed the present complaint before this Forum.  In this background, it is convenient and right to hold that the complainant was well aware as well as she was in the knowledge of the factum that OPs No.1 to 3 shared her personal information with third person i.e. Opposite Party No.4 itself in the year 2011, when Opposite Party No.4 placed on record her call details for the period pertaining to 22.2.2010 to 22.6.2010 along with written arguments.  This cannot  be  denied  that  she   was  the  part  & parcel of that enquiry and the cause of action started to run in her favour from the date of her knowledge about the deficiency in service rendered by OPs NO.1 to 3. In our opinion, the information sought by her under the Right to Information Act in the year 2012 as well as issuance of the notices thereafter, in the year 2014 i.e. 25.9.2014, cannot enhance her period of limitation, which is well enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as Two years from the date of cause of action.  For the sake of convenience, Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deals with limitation, is reproduced as under:-

 

“24A. Limitation Period. _ (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the national Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”

 

11]        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

 

11.       We feel that the view expressed by the Forum is perfectly justified. Qua breach of privacy of the appellant, in supplying call details to respondent no.4, by respondents no.1 to 3, the said privacy was breached in the year 2011. The appellant got copy of her call details, through using the legal process, in the month of December 2012. She kept mum thereafter. She sent a legal notice only on 25.09.2014. By serving that notice, the period of limitation cannot be extended. It is apparent on record that from the date of accrual of cause of action, the appellant has not filed the complaint, within a period of two years, in view of the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No ground, whatsoever, has been made out by the appellant, to interfere in the order under challenge.
12.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant.
13.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
14.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

20.04.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg