Per Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member
1) The complainant is the subscriber of the opponent holding prepaid mobile connection No.9821387520 purchased in Mumbai from the opponent. The complainant’s mother died on 13th June, 2011 at around 11.50 A.M. That day from 6.30 P.M. until she expired, the complainant had contacted several of his doctors, sisters, brothers, relatives from his said mobile. Some of them even called him back. After death, complainant made certain calls to his relatives. As the complainant wanted to gather the data and recollect/reconstruct the details/sequence of whom did he call, at what time of that unfortunate day between 7.00 P.M. and midnight of 13th June, 2011. He called upon the opponent on its toll free number ‘800’ on 20th July, 2011 and requested the call center to provide him the details/records of the calls transacted through his mobile for 13th and 14th June, 2011 with readiness to pay the necessary charges if any. However, the said executive refused to give him the records. As per the TRAI’s guidelines, the complainant lodged a grievance with the Nodal Officer by email and requested to provide him the CDR on 20th July, 2011 itself. In response, he received an email on 20th July, 2011 from the opponent’s redressal department stating that they would revert to him within two days. On 22nd July, 2011, the complainant received a reply from a call centre executive stating that the prepaid billing facility is online and hence they were unable to accede his request. On 23rd July, 2011, the complainant sent mail asking explanation for not providing the said copies. The complainant got email from the opponent on the same day saying that they will report within two days but they never did till date.
2) The complainant also lodged an appeal with the Appellate Authority of the opponent on 23rd July, 2011 via email and got reply that they would revert back to him within two days. However, till date there is no response from the Appellate Authority of the opponent in the matter. The complainant further states that the Appellate Authority though bound under the TRAI Regulation never attended to or disposed off his appeal. This shows utmost neglect of the customer’s rights and requirements. In fact, to charge separately or additionally for giving a ‘bill’ for the services rendered is itself a deficiency. The complainant says that no logical and tenable explanation is provided by the opponent for not giving the call records to its prepaid customers at least upon specific requests. The attitude of the opponent has forced him to approach the Consumer Forum subjecting to a lot of physical and mental agony, hardship and expenses. The complainant prayed to provide him the copies of the call records of his cell number 9821387520 for 13th June, 2011 and 14th June, 2011. The complainant further prayed for directing the opponent to pay him amount of Rs.10,000/- for subjecting him to mental and physical harassment, agony, inconvenience and deficient services. The complainant also prayed for directing the opponent to pay him amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost and expenses of this complaint.
3) The opponent appeared and filed written statement. The opponent denied all the allegations, statements and submissions of the complainant. The opponent further states that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The opponent submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent as has been alleged by the complainant and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The opponent has acted in accordance to the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunication. The only grievance of the complainant is that the opponent has not provided him with his call details record (CDR) in respect of his prepaid mobile No.9821387520. The opponent further submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunication the interception facilities, supply of CDRs etc. can be allowed by a service provider only to the designated security agencies etc. as notified by the Government of India. The complainant inspite of been informed of the said fact from time to time still kept complaining about the same grievance to without making proper inquiry and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The opponent further denies all the paras of the complaint and asked complainant to put strict proof in respect of his said contention. The opponent further denied that there is any negligence, deficiency, failure etc. in their providing services and performing duties and complainant has suffered any loss on account of the services provided by the opponent and hence liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. The opponent further submitted that to provide the complainant with copies of call records of his cell phone no.9821387520 for 13th June, 2011 and 14th June, 2011 is beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Forum.
4) On hearing both the parties and after going through the records, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service by the opponent ? | Yes |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? | Yes |
3) | What Order? | As per final order |
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 to 2 :- The complainant has requested to provide him the details/records of the calls transaction through his mobile for 13th June, 2011 and 14th June, 2011 with readiness to pay the necessary charges. However, the opponent refused to give him the records. The opponent states that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the opponent has acted in accordance to the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunication. As per the guidelines of Department of Telecommunication interception facilities, supply of CDRs etc. can be allowed by service provider only to the designated security agencies etc. as notified by the Government of India as per No.800-48/2009-VAS.III/3 Dated 28th July, 2009 and No.20-40/2006-BS-III(Vol.IV)/73 Dated 23rd September, 2009. In the above letters, the Ministry of Telecommunication has given authorization of National Investigating Agency as a monitoring agency under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for continuous monitoring of the system with list of designated security agencies and list of Nodal/Alternate Nodal Officer for interception facilities, supply of CDRs, resolution of IP address etc. In the above letter it is nowhere stated that CDR can not be supplied/allowed to the consumer himself.
6) According to the opponent this Forum has not jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as there is specific bar. On the other hand, it is submitted by the complainant that the Hon’ble State Commission has already decided the point of jurisdiction in First Appeal No.185/1999, General Manager (Leased Circuit) MTNL & Others –Versus- Sandeep Dattaraya Uddhao & Others decided on 6th November, 2012. In this judgment the Hon’ble State Commission has held that Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has been passed to establish Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to regulate telecommunication service, adjudicate disputes, disposing appeals and to protect the interest of service providers and consumers of the telecom sector and for matters connected thereof. In this judgment, the Hon’ble State Commission has held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints against the service provider as defined in the Post & Telegraph Act and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 so far as individual consumers/complainants concerned.
7) As per the TRAI’s guideline the complainant lodged a grievance with Nodal Officer and requesting to provide him the CDR. The complainant also lodged an appeal with the Appellate Authority of opponent. However, till date there is no response from the Appellate Authority. No legal and tenable explanation is provided by the opponent for not giving the call records. This certainly is the deficiency in service by the opponent. The learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that the complainant has not suffered any loss. Therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation. According to the complainant, his mother died on 13th June, 2011 and hence he wanted to recall the persons to whom he was called in between 13th June, 2011 and 14th June, 2011. The issue is definitely involving one. But instead of providing him the said CDR, the opponent has put him in mental and physical harassment agony. The complainant has to make many emails and personal visits to the opponent. Not only that he has to spare his valuable time and therefore is certainly liable for compensation. We think the amount of Rs.7,000/- will suffice the purpose. The complainant was compelled to file this complaint and incur expenses to conduct this consumer complaint. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation of this proceeding. We think the expenses of Rs.5,000/- claimed by the complainant are reasonable. Therefore, he is entitled to recover it from the opponent. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint is allowed.
2) The opponent is directed to provide the complainant the copies of call records of his cell phone No.9821387520 for the period from 13th June, 2011 and 14th June, 2011.
3) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- (Rs.Seven Thousand Only) as compensation towards mental and physical harassment, agony and inconvenience.
4) The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant towards cost of this proceeding.
5) The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced
Dated 17th January, 2014
