Haryana

StateCommission

A/684/2016

DILBAG SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MIGLANI COMMUNICATIONS - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV DEEP GOEL

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    684 of 2016

Date of Institution:    25.07.2016

Date of Decision :     26.10.2016

 

Dilbag Singh s/o Shri Fateh Singh, Resident of Village Kithana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

                                                    Versus              

 

1.      Miglani Communication, through Proprietor, Shop No.861/1, Kurukshetra Road, near Chotu Ram Chowk, Kaithal, Phone No.01746-65402, 01746-60500, Mobile No.90341-91040, Kaithal District Kaithal.

2.      Director/Authorised Tata Telecom Services Limited, C-125, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali Punjab-160071, Telephone No.0172-6651515.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Gauravdeep Goel, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

Shri Angraze Singh Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the order dated March 3^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint No.169 of 2015 filed by him was dismissed.

2.                Dilbag Singh-complainant/appellant subscriber of mobile telephone connection No.9034150617 alleged to have received some threatening calls on his above said mobile phone and therefore approached the opposite parties-respondents to provide the details of calls which were not provided to him. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite parties-respondents in their written version stated that they could not share the call details for any connection without following the proper procedure. The complainant used Value Added Services namely Games Club Nazara owing to which Rs.99/- got deducted from the balance. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Indisputably, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, which is a controlling authority for all telephone companies, has laid down guidelines putting restrictions for providing call details. The complainant asking the call details in violation of the instructions, the opposite parties were certainly justified in refusing to provide call details. In view of this, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5.                Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.  

   

Announced 26.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL