Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/12/1216

Sudarsana Reddy G. Aged 37 Years, Works in IBM India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Manager Idea Cellur Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 15.06.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 04.12.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1216/2012

DATED THIS THE 04^th DECEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sudarsana Reddy G

aged 37 years,

works in IBM India,

#33/1, 10^th main,

12^th A cross, Vyalikaval, Malleswaram,

Bengaluru-03.

 

By Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Manager/Head

Idea Cellular Ltd.,

#75, Civil station

Richmond road,

Bengaluru-25.

 

2. Sr.Manager

Idea Cellular Ltd.,

5^th floor, Windsor,

Off CST road Kalina,

Santa Cruz (E),

Mumbai-400098

 

By Adv.Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda

 

 

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) to impose fine as per TRAI for an amount of Rs.1,000/- for each SMS/calls (current fine is Rs.25k-Rs.2.5 lakhs for 4^th time) for harassment. Further to order Rs.10 lakhs as compensation in which Rs.6.5 lakhs for harassing by commercial calls & SMS’s over 650+times & Rs.3.5 lakhs for mental harassment & valuable time spent in writing lengthy & complex mails.      

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that the Idea Cellular Mobile Operator has harassed him continuously for 8 months by calling 400+calls on average every day 2 to 3 calls and sending commercial SMS’s 270+ (currently Complainant handset has 140 SMS sent by Idea Cellular and 80 SMS sent by third party) even though mobile number registered in National Do Not Call (NDNC) registry and informed many times by email, in person & phone NOT TO DISTURB. It is also the case of the Complainant that on 29.01.2011, he had taken SIM no.9743670433 from Idea cellular and while filling application clearly opted to register in NDNC registry (currently called NCCP) for not to get commercial calls & SMS still he got continuously commercial calls and SMS from Ops. He got more than 10 times each commercial call & SMS regarding caller tunes and recharge offers (Quotes from Quran, recharge Rs.35 & get full talk time). When he got 3 calls on 28.02.2011 from Ops, sent a mail on same day still Ops HAD NOT stopped. Idea Cellular customer care had replied on 02.03.2011 that the SIM has registered in NDNC registry only on 02.03.2011, while filling the form for the SIM, Complainant opted NDNC registration but Ops had not registered. Even after repeatedly informing to Idea cellular customer care over phone and email there is no change in harassment, he approached next level GRIEVANCE OFFICER on 15.03.2011 with detailed mail, still Ops not stopped commercial calls and SMS’s. Grievance officer confirmed that he will get reply in 3 days for his mail sent on 15.03.2011 but after understanding that the mistake is from Idea cellular customer care, finally Grievance officer has not replied at all. At least after the Ops have not stopped calls & SMS. On 15.03.2011, he approached next level Grievance officer by keeping customer care email id in cc of the mail. At least after this mail also Idea cellular customer care has not stopped calls and SMS.  Since 4 months frequency of PRERECORDED calls increased, he vexed and sent a mail on 14.05.2011 to stop commercial calls and SMs’s. He got reference SR1-15530625954 without stopping calls and SMS. Further it is the case of the Complainant that on 04.06.2011, 21.06.2011 & on 27.06.2011, he sent mails to grievance officer that he had kept a case in Supreme Court regarding tele callers and once that case comes to hearing then all these mails will become part of the case, still Ops did not changed attitude. Even though his mail contains clearly required call & SMS details and also stated that all these caller tunes calls and recharge offer SMSs are from Ops, still after 16 days (generally responded in 4 days) grievance officer requested AGAIN AND AGAIN DETAILS of unwanted calls & SMSs to irrigate so that he stops requesting. Anyone can understand that Caller tunes and recharge offers comes from telecom provider but grievance does not understood. Here grievance officer understood that telemarketer’s number were issued by Idea cellular. On 10.07.2011, he replied with all the calls & SMS details. He got auto response that within 3 days response will be sent but there is no response as Ops understood that the mistake is from Ops itself but not stopped calls & SMs’s. Further it is the case of the Complainant that he is an IT employee, IT jobs are mentally more tension jobs particularly at end of the day due to unresolved issues. Ops disturbed entire day including late evenings (8.18pm, 8.32pm….) and day starting (9.03am, 10.22am, 10.29am…..). He registered a complaint in National consumer helpline, still Ops not stopped harassing him. Idea cellular sent more than 34+ VULGAR SMS’s regarding hottest and sexy babes & models photos & video clips. Hence prayed for allowing the complaint.

 

          3. On service of the notice, the Op.no.1 & 2 did appear before this forum. The Ops Idea Cellular ltd., filed objections denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant except admitting the purchase of the sim by the Complainant from Ops and opted for DND (do not disturb) facilities. It is the main contention taken by the Ops are that the present complaint filed by the Complainant before this forum is not maintainable in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no.7687/2004 dtd.01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manger, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan & another reported in 2009 AIR SCW -5631 and in special leave to appeal (civil) no(s) 24577/2010 between Prakash verma Vs Idea Cellular ltd and another also other subsequent judgments held that ‘It is a settle law that general law must yield to special law’, and further held that there was a remedy prescribed under Sec.7B of the Telegraph Act for resolution of all disputes regarding telecom through arbitration. Since there was a specific statutory remedy prescribed, it would oust the jurisdiction of consumer courts, In view of the said judgment, since the dispute raised by the Complainant is between the subscriber and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the Complainant is under Sec.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this count itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Further relying on the said judgment, National Commission, and the various state commissions have also disposed off the complaints holding that any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliances or apparatus shall be determined by the arbitrators. It is also the contention of the Ops that as per clause 16 of the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications Regulations, 2007 (4 of 2007) guideline dtd.05.06.2007. In case any subscriber receives unsolicited commercial communication only after expiry of 45 days complaint can be filed. Further it is submitted that as per the regulation Sec.17, no service provider shall, sent any unsolicited commercial communication to its subscriber after expiry of 45 days from the date on which such subscriber makes a request. Further as per clause 19(4) the Telecom commercial communications customer preference regulations, 2010 if the Complainant/subscriber received any unsolicited commercial communication after expiry of 45 days from the date of request for DND, he has to make complaint with the Ops with all detailed like the particulars of telemarketer, the telephone number, from which the unsolicited commercial communication originated, the date, time and brief description of such unsolicited commercial communication as specified in schedule VI. It is also the case of the Ops that the documents provided by the Complainant does not reveal the full particulars to register the complaint against the registered telemarketer or any service provider. The Ops have requested to provide better particulars but he failed to provide the said particulars. Further the allegations made by the Complainant in doc.no.5 produced along with the Complainant that all the call details and SMS details are available with the company, as per the regulation, the service provider is not authorized to intercept/verify or see the contents, which is sent to their customer or subscriber in any circumstance for maintaining the data privacy and further the service provider is also not authorized to disclose the contents to anybody, expect as per due process of law. Therefore as per the regulation the Ops are not bound to register complaints based on incomplete information furnished by the Complainant. Further it is submitted that as per the regulation the Complainant herein has no right to lodge the complaint till expiry of 45 days from the date of registration to DND, but in the instant case, from day one of the purchase of the sim, the Complainant is making such complaint with Ops on different level which is not permissible. Further it is submitted by the Ops that anybody can use the IDEA number for his purpose, but in order to make any allegation against the any number of the IDEA, it is very necessary to furnish the full details, but according to the above documents also he has not submitted the required information as per the regulation and said fact was fairly admitted by the Complainant in his mail dtd.10.07.2011.  Further Ops submitted that on getting the information regarding details to be provided for lodging a complaint, the Complainant herein has sent the mail dtd.10.07.2012. Therein he has provided calling number, date and time and purpose for 7 numbers and on receipt of the said information, the Ops on verification, found that the call details furnished by the Complainant herein was time barred one and therefore no data was available with the Op after expiry of3 days for verification within which he was supposed to complain as per clause 19(4) of the Telecom commercial communications customer preference regulations, 2010. Further, as per the details furnished by the Complainant herein, the calling numbers are unregistered telemarketers numbers, on which the Op can only warn on first instance as per clause 19(11) the Telecom commercial communications customer preference regulations, 2010. Therefore the allegation made by the Complainant is only to harass the Op nothing else. It is also the case of the Ops that the Complainant has stated in respect of his complaint pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this context, he did not furnished the better particulars as to know on which grounds he has knocked the door of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for seeking the relief. Hence the contents of clause 8 of the complaint are appears to be imaginary and far away from truth. It is also the case of the Ops that the conduct of the Complainant is condemnable, as he was using such filthy and unparliamentarily language as used in various documents by him. Hence the Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.

 

          4. The Complainant has filed objections to the version filed by the Ops by denying the contents of the objections. He has given some more better particulars in respect of his claim with reference to Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1985 to which the Ops have given brief counter by reproducing the contents of the objections.

 

          5. To substantiate his case, Complainant filed his affidavit evidence by reiterating the contents of the complaint and got marked the documents Ex-A1 to A22. One Sri.Gurudatta, Sr.Manager Legal in the Ops company has filed his affidavit evidence. The Complainant as well as the Ops filed their written arguments. Heard both side.

   

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Is there any cause of action to file this complaint ?
2. Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so whether he is entitle for the relief sought for ?
3. What order ?

                   

           

 

7.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.

Point no.2: In the Negative.  

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          8. Point no.1: As to know whether the Complainant has got any cause of action to file this complaint as against the Ops for seeking the relief as stated in his complaint, is concerned,  we placed reliance on the contents of the complaint, wherein he never whispered when exactly he has got cause of action to file this complaint. In the entire text of the complaint, he has only stated with regard to the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The Complainant makes several correspondence as against the Ops in respect of non-compliance of his request or in respect of opting NDNC registration. Except making certain allegations against the Ops, he has not specifically pleaded when exactly the cause of action has been arose to him. Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any cause of action. Accordingly the point no.1 is answered in the negative.

 

          9. Point no.2: Soon after filing the complaint, the Ops filed objections to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable since there is an option is left open to the Complainant to invoke Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act. The said application has been dismissed by the learned predecessor by order dtd.16.07.2013. As against the said order the Ops have filed revision petition before Hon’ble State Commission and the same was also came to be dismissed by order dtd.27.01.2014. Now the only option is left open to this forum is to find out whether there is any deficiency on the part of the Ops.

 

          10. To prove his case, the Complainant has taken the aid of the unwanted call list, messages sent by the telemarketers etc., The specific case of the Complainant is that on 29.01.11 he has taken the new sim and opted to register in the DND (do not disturb) resisted for not to get commercial calls/SMS which has been confirmed by the Ops. This fact is not denied by the Ops. The Complainant even though opted to register in DND registry, but the Ops did not register in DND registry. On 28.02.2011, the Complainant sent mail to the Ops for getting commercial calls/SMS for Ops itself. In this context, the Ops replied on 02.03.2011 registering in the DND registry. Inspite of it the Ops never taken any action with regard to the request made by the Complainant through emails. In this context, on 15.03.2011, he approached the second level grievance officer of the Ops with elaborate contents to stop commercial calls and SMS, but no action was taken to stop the commercial calls and SMS. It is also the case of the Complainant that even bearing harassment for 3.5 months, on 14.05.2011 he sent mails calling Ops to stop commercial calls and SMS. As the revenge, the Ops started commercial calls day starting and late evening.  Further on 14.05.2011, he sent email to the Ops to stop the commercial calls, but no fruitful result from Ops. The Complainant also informed to the Ops that he has filed a case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on telemarketers. Further on 10.07.2011 he sent the mails as requested by the grievance officer to stop the commercial calls and SMS. The Ops even understood their mistake, not respond for the mails and atleast not stopped the commercial calls and SMS. In this context, he sent notice on 09.06.2012 to come forward and settle the matter before going forum. To which the Ops replied senseless answer without understanding the subject. According to the case of the Complainant, ‘unsolicited commercial communication’ means any message, through telecommunications service, which is transmitted for the purpose of informing about, or soliciting or promoting any commercial transaction in relation to goods, investments or services which a subscriber opts not to receive, but does not include:

1. Any message (other than promotional message) relating to a service or financial transaction under a specific contract between the parties to such contract; or
2. Any messages relating to charities, national campaigns or natural calamities transmitted on the directions of the Government or agencies authorized by it for the said purpose;
3. Any message transmitted, on the directions of the Government or any authority or agency authorized by it, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality.

 

Further he has explained in his written arguments that what is a National Do Not Call Registry ?

The NDNC registry is a database having the list of all telephone numbers of the subscribers who do not want to receive UCC. Telephone subscriber (landline or mobile) who does not wish to receive UCC, can register their telephone number with their telecom service provider for inclusion in the NDNC. Telecom service provider shall upload the telephone number to the NDNC within 45 days of receipt. The telemarketer will have to verify their calling telephone numbers list with the NDNC registry before making a call.

 

Further he has stated in his written arguments that what is the procedure for registering in National Do Not Call Registry?

You can register your number in NDNC registry by calling or sending SMS to toll-free 1909 saying ‘start DND’. The registration will become effective within 45 days from the date of registration.

 

Further what are details to be furnished in the complaint is concerned, he has stated in his written arguments that

If your number has been on the National do not call registry for at least 45 days and you receive a call from a telemarketer, you can file a complaint within 45 days from the receipt of UCC calls/SMS with full details to your service provider. The details must include the call originating number, date/time of the call and type of commercial message. The Complainant should insist for the complaint no. which should be kept for further reference.

 

Further the Complainant stated that when the complaint is given to the service provider, it has to give you a complaint number for future reference. If the telemarketer belongs to its company it has to check whether the telemarketer is registered in NDNC registry or not. After that he has to handle the complaint as per the UCC Regulation 2007 as amended from time to time.  

 

11. Per contra the learned counsel for the Ops submit that there is no laxity on the part of the Ops in providing the service. Op submits that in order to make any DND complaint, the Complainant has to follow the rules prescribed under the notification of the TRAI and further he has to submit all relevant information to the Ops within stipulated time period in order to enable them to take action as per the regulations. But in the instant case none of his complaints received by the Op within time period with all requisite details despite specific request from the Ops. Further submitted that the Complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. The data requested was highly pertinent without which the service provider could not have taken action and the Complainant has intentionally not provided the required information just to allege deficiency of service on the Op. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Ops that the Op being access provider is only responsible for registration of the request of the customer/registered telemarketer. The TRAI had fixed the 45 days time limit for the same considering the complexity involved in such process and infrastructure existed at that time both at access provider and at TRAI. It is also submitted that as per clause 19(4) the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer preference Regulations, 2010, only if the Complainant/subscriber received any unsolicited commercial communication after expiry of 45 days from the date of request for DND, he may complaint with the Op with all details like particulars of telemarketer, the telephone number, from which the unsolicited commercial communication originated, the date, time and brief description of such unsolicited commercial communication as specified in schedule VI of the regulations. Failure to provide such vital information will handicap the service provider for taking appropriate action. In this context, the Complainant never complied with to furnish these vital informations. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the Complainant that all the call details and SMS shown are not available with the Ops. The Complainant has not at all furnished the detail particulars, hence, as per the regulation, the service provider is not authorized to intercept/verify/see/disclose the contents, of the calls/SMS sent/ received by its customer for maintaining the privacy of data, expect as per due process of law. Learned counsel for the Ops submit that the documents no.2 & 3A submitted by the Complainant though lack the particulars of the telemarketer/description of unsolicited commercial communication, the Op recorded the interaction and provided the reference no. to the Complainant as per the documents no.3B. Further it is submitted that on 04.06.2011, the complainant sent the mail to the Op, without any particulars and therefore the Op has replied his mail requesting him to furnish details of unwanted SMS or caller with date and time, CLI and contents to register complaint, but in spite of the said request, he has not submitted the said information to register the complaint. It is further submitted that without providing the full details as required to register the complaint, the Complainant was sending the mails without any particulars and hence the Op tried to reach the customer through his mobile, but due to no response from the customer end, the Op sent the mail dtd.27.06.2011 educating the customer about all the documents required for registering the complaint against the telemarketer. In spite of the same, Complainant has not provided the said information with an ulterior motive of making false allegation of deficiency of service with an intention to make unlawful gains. Further submitted that anybody can use a number provided by the Op and may call/SMS to a DND customer, but in order to make any allegation against such number, it is very much necessary to furnish statutory details provided under the regulation. But the Complainant has not submitted such information and said fact was fairly admitted by the Complainant in his mail dtd.10.07.2011. Further learned counsel for the Ops submit that later, the Complainant has sent the mail dtd.10.07.2012 wherein he has provided calling number, date and time and purpose for the 7 numbers. However, the Op on verification, found that the call details furnished by the Complainant were time bared and hence could not take action as per the clause 19(4) of the Telecom commercial Communications customer preference Regulations, 2010. Further, as per the details furnished by the Complainant herein, the calling numbers are unregistered telemarketers numbers, on which the Op can only warn on first instance as per clause 19(11)  the Telecom commercial Communications customer preference Regulations, 2010. Though the Complainant has not substantiated his allegations that these numbers are registered in the name of Idea Cellular Ltd., the Op has submitted to the forum that none of these numbers were registered in its name. Learned counsel for the Ops further submits that the conduct of the Complainant is hereby condemned and the Op strongly oppose the use such filthy and unparliamentarily language as used in the various documents by him and filed before this forum.

Extract of the relevant portion of the same is given below.

In document 3A ‘….. if I get calls then it is assumed that I have fuxxed yours wifes or someone attending the mail’…..

‘……then everybody in Idea corporate are Batxxds…..’

In document 4A it is stated that ‘you fellows are having much much fact and it will come down’ and then further threatens…’ when my case comes to hearing which is in Supreme Court then all these communications I will present in the court’.

The language used in various documents and further production of such documents before the forum without any hesitation, itself reveals the dignity of the Complainant.

 

          12. We have placed reliance on the available materials on record. It is not in dispute that on 29.01.2011, the Complainant had taken sim no.9743670433 from Idea Cellular, while filing an application clearly opted to register in NDNC registry,  now currently called as NCCP for not to get commercial calls & SMS. Inspite of it he got continuous commercials calls and SMS from Ops. With regard to taking the said sim from Idea Cellular is not disputed by the Ops. It is also partially admitted by the Ops that the Complainant received commercial calls and SMS but not from its side. The main contention taken by the Complainant is that inspite of opting to register in NDNC registry for not to get commercial calls and SMS, but the same were continued, hence he being disgusted with regard to the said commercial calls and SMS, he informed to the Ops. The another contention taken by the Complainant is that if the number has been on the NDNC registry and within 45 days did not receive any response from the telemarketer, the complaint can be filed within 15 days from the receipt of the UCC calls/SMS with full details of the service provider. Further the details must include the call originating number, date/time of the call and type of commercial message. But in the instant case, the Complainant has not furnished the detail particulars as sought for by the Ops to take proper action. It is the say of the Complainant that soon after taking the said sim no.9743670433 from the Idea cellular, he clearly informed to register in NDNC registry. No doubt, he opted for the same facility, but to take action, he will have to wait for about 45 days from the date of filing the complaint. If action was not taken by the Ops after 45 days from the date of filing the complaint, he has to take legal action. But in the instant case, the available materials on record goes to show that he has not furnished detail particulars as sought for by the Ops. In this context, we placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2013) CPJ 265 in the case of Cellular Operators Association of India & Another, ICICI Bank, American Express Bank ltd., Vs Nivedita Sharma & Ors., wherein it was held as under:

(ii) Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(ii)-Telecom services – unsolicited calls and SMS –Breach of contract and trust – Right to privacy – sharing of personal information – alleged deficiency of service – State commission allowed complaint – Complainant not able to discharge burden of proof – calls and SMS from Airtel had ceased after two written complaints were made to company – ‘COAI’ and ‘TRAI’ were working on positioning an effective mechanism to address problem – No evidence brought to show that Airtel had continued to share personal information of Complainant with banks and financial institutions, from whom she continued to receive unsolicited calls and SMS – Award of compensation by State Commission @ Rs.50,000/- under para 38(iii)  set aside – Other directions contained in paras 38 & 39 left undisturbed – contents of para 40 of impugned order shall be treated as recommendations and not directions of Commission.

 

In the light of the decision cited supra, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the Complainant failed to discharge his burden to give the better particulars to the Ops to take action in the matter. Hence there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Ops. Accordingly we answered the point no.2 in the negative.

 

13. Before parting with we place reliance on the text of emails particulars marked as Ex-A4 sent by the Complainant to the Ops, wherein he has used some unparliamentarily words towards the Ops which is condemnable. This issue is kept open to take proper action by the aggrieved parties. 

 

14. Point no.3: In view of our findings on point no.1 & 2, the Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought for.   In the result we passed the following.  

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.

 

2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 04^th December of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Sudarsana Reddy, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Complaint to customer care of Op dtd.28.02.11
Ex-A2	Reply mail by customer care of Op dtd.02.03.11
Ex-A3 & A4	Complaint to customer care and grievance officer of Op dtd.15.03.11 & dtd.14.05.11
Ex-A5	Reply mail by Op dtd.15.05.11
Ex-A6	Complaint to grievance officer of Op dtd.04.06.11
Ex-A7	Reply mail by grievance officer of Op dtd.20.06.11
Ex-A8	Complaint to grievance officer of Op dtd.21.06.11
Ex-A9	Reply mail by grievance officer of Op dtd.27.06.11
Ex-A10	Complaint to grievance officer of Op dtd.27.06.11
Ex-A11	Reply mail by grievance officer of Op dtd.01.07.11
Ex-A12	Complaint to grievance officer of Op dtd.10.07.11
Ex-A13	Department of Telecom document indicating commercial calls series is assigned to Op dtd.20.03.13
Ex-A14	SMS’s photo as sent by Op
Ex-A15	Vulgar SMS’s photos as sent by Op
Ex-A16	Department of Telecom document indicating commercial SMS/calls series assigned to Op
Ex-A17	Telecom Regulatory document indicating Complainant mobile registered in Do not disturb
Ex-A18	Telecom Regulatory guide lines document indicating Op need to control/restrict telemarketer
Ex-A19	Complaint with customer support desk of Op
Ex-A20	SMS’s photos containing other religious messages as sent by Op
Ex-A21	Legal notice dtd.09.06.
Ex-A22	Irrelevant reply mail by Op dtd.09.06.

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Gurudatta, who being the Sr.Manager Legal in Opposite parties company was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT