Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/567/2014

Charanjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma Adv.

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	567 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	5.11.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	15.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Charanjit Kaur d/o Sh. Manohar Singh resident of House No.380/1, Sector 41A, Chandigarh.

         …..Complainant

Versus

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

 

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.) An 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.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

4.      Manu Kapur R/o House No. 1044, Sector 35B, Chandigarh.

       2^nd address

          Manu Kapur, P.A. to Sh. Rajbir Singh, IAS (Secretary General Administration) 4^th floor,    Haryana   Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, U.T.,     Chandigarh.

….. Performa OP

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. V.M. Sharma, Advocate

 

For OP No. 1 to 3       :     Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv.  

For OP No.4             :     Exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant who is subscriber of OPs No.1 to 3 in the year 2010 filed a complaint regarding sexual harassment against Opposite Party No.4 to the Chief Secretary, Haryana on 8.6.2010 and accordingly a committee was constituted for redressal of her grievance.  It is alleged that in proceedings before the said Committee Opposite Party No.4 in his defence produced on record written arguments dated 13.9.2011 alongwith call details of the complainants for the period from 22.2.2010 to 22.6.2010, which he procured from OPs No.1 to 3 by unfair means without consent of the complainant.  The complainant obtained the said information under RTI on 4.12.2012 from Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Haryana. It is further alleged that the complainant raised the issue with Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 numerous time for taking necessary action for such lapse but to no effect. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.9.2014 to the Opposite Parties No. 1to 3 but that also in vain. It is alleged that the OPs No. 1 to 3 by supplying the call details record of the complainant have failed to honour their own privacy policy and  they showed no regard to the privacy of their bonafide customers, as such this act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency against OPs No. 1 to 3.  

 

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4 despite service, therefore, it was  proceeded ex-parte on 13.5.2015.

         Opposite Parties NO.1 to 3 in their joint reply took the preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. It has been asserted that the complaint has been filed after lapse of more than 3 years. It has been admitted that the complainant has been availing post paid mobile services of the answering Opposite Parties.  It has been denied that the answering OPs ever provided the call details of the complainant to anybody which included OP No.4.  It has also been denied that the answering OPs has ever received the legal notice from the complainant. Further stated that the answering Opposite Parties had  never breached any trust of the complainant rather the complainant in order to enrich unlawful goals had filed a false and frivolous complaint. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 and have also perused the record.

 

6]       It is the main grouse of the complainant that Opposite Parties NO.1 to 3 committed grave negligence in sharing the personal information of the complainant with Opposite Party No.4, which otherwise is also against the privacy policy of OPs No.1 to 3.

 

7]       Before going into the merits of the complaint, it is proper to deal with the preliminary objection qua limitation raised by OPs No.1 to 3 in their defence, which goes to the root of the present complaint.

 

8]       The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 raised objection that the present compliant is badly time barred as the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2011, whereas the complainant filed the present complaint in the year 2014.  We find force in the objection raised by OPs No.1 to 3.  As it is well settled and admitted on record that the complainant filed a complaint regarding sexual harassment against Opposite Party No.4 in the year 2010 and in pursuance to that a Departmental Committee was constituted and during the proceedings before the Departmental Committee, the Opposite Party No.4 in his defence placed on record his written arguments dated 13.9.2011 and along with it, he also submitted the Call Details of the complainant for the year from 22.2.2010 to 22.6.2010. 

 

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.

        

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15^th February, 2016               

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

mp/Om  

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.567  OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 15th February, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member