BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.380-14

Date of Institution:17-07-2014

Date of Decision:13-04-2015  

Gonika Arora, Managing Director, SAGA Studies Private Limited, C-2140, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Vodafone Limited, The Mall Road, Ebony Building, Amritsar.
2. Vodafone South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Simardeep Singh, representative of complainant.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: K.K.Thakur, Advocate. 

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ms.Gonika Arora  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is the Managing Director of SAGA Studies Private Limited, using telephone No.+91-9417943700. Complainant alleges that somebody was disturbing her on telephone and she requested  the operator of Opposite Parties to provide the incoming call details of aforesaid telephone number for the period of April and May, 2014, but the Opposite Parties  denied to provide the incoming call details and asked for legal assistance.     Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to take necessary action against the concerned person.
2. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  21.10.2014 of this Forum.
3.  On notice, Opposite Party No.2  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement form of the Opposite Party which the complainant was supposed to fill, before being allotted any mobile number as alleged by the complainant, the parties to the agreement i.e. the complainant and  the Opposite Party has agreed that in case of any dispute the same shall be resolved amicably. In the present case, the subscriber of the telephone has failed to lodge any grievance with the Opposite Party and in the absence of the same, the present complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that, legally the Opposite Parties  are bound not to provide the details of the incoming calls on any mobile number.  In the present case, the complainant asked for details of incoming calls on her mobile number, which the Opposite Party No.2 can not provide  as per the policy of the company and Licence terms and conditions agreed between the department of telecommunication and  Opposite Party Company. The complainant has misinterpreted the reply given by the Opposite Party No.2 through e-mail. In the reply to the e-mail, the Opposite Party No.2 suggested the complainant to take legal action against the person who is disturbing her. But by misinterpreting the reply, the complainant took legal action against the Opposite Party No.2, instead of taking any legal action against the person who is disturbing her. The answering Opposite Party suggested the complainant that she can not be given the details of the income calls of her mobile number as per the policy of the company.          While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashutosh Kalia, Senior Manager Legal Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the representative of the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the  complainant firm, SAGA Studies Private Limited obtained telephone No.+91-9417943700 from Opposite Parties.  Ms.Gonika Arora  is the Managing Director of SAGA Studies Private Limited. Complainant alleges that somebody was disturbing her on the aforesaid telephone and she requested  the operator of Opposite Parties to provide the incoming call details of aforesaid telephone number for the period of April and May, 2014, but the Opposite Parties  refused to issue the same. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2  is that as per the agreement form of the Opposite Party which the complainant was supposed to fill, before being allotted any mobile number, the parties to the agreement i.e. the complainant and  the Opposite Party are bound by the terms and conditions of that agreement. The complainant has failed to lodge any grievance with the Opposite Party in this regard and in the absence of any complaint/ grievance, the Opposite Party  could not solve  the matter in dispute with the complainant, amicably. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant made request for the details of the incoming calls and the Opposite Party No.2 did not provide the same because as per the policy of the Opposite Party Company, the  details of the incoming calls can not be provided except for security reasons and that too to the police  authorities only. The complainant has misinterpreted the reply given by the Opposite Party No.2 through e-mail Ex.C4. In the reply to the e-mail, the Opposite Party No.2 suggested the complainant to take legal action against the person who is disturbing her by lodging a complaint with the police authorities and the police authorities can seek the details from the Opposite Party on security point of view. The Opposite Party No.2 produced on record the licence agreement. As per this licence  agreement, the Opposite Party can provide the details to  authorized officers of Government of India including Police, Customs, Excise, Intelligence Department Officers, etc. when such information is required for investigations or detection of crimes and in the interest of national security (Clause 40.4 of this Agreement). Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that in light of the aforesaid provisions of licence agreement, the Opposite Parties  have rightly refused to give details of the incoming calls to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties  qua the complainant.     
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the firm  M/s.SAGA Studies Private Limited obtained  telephone No.+91-9417943700 from the Opposite Parties. The Managing Director of the firm M/s.SAGA Studies Private Limited namely Ms.Gonika Arora alleges that somebody was disturbing her on aforesaid telephone. As such, she requested  the Opposite Parties to provide the incoming call details of aforesaid telephone number for the period of April and May, 2014, but the Opposite Parties  refused to  provide the incoming call details on security ground. As per Licence Agreement produced by the Opposite Parties  Annexure AR-1&2, the policy of the Opposite Party/ Company is that the detail of the incoming calls can not be provided except for security reasons and that too to the investigating agency i.e. police  authorities. In this regard, the Opposite Party No.2 sent e-mail Ex.C4 in reply to the e-mail sent by the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 suggested the complainant to take legal action against the   person who is disturbing her by lodging a complaint with the police authorities and the police authorities can seek the details from the Opposite Parties on security point of view. So, as per the Licence Agreement Annexure AR-1&2 and the form submitted by the complainant firm  for seeking the aforesaid connection, the parties are governed by terms and conditions of this agreement and as  per this Licence  Agreement, the Opposite Parties can provide the details to  authorized officers of Government of India including Police, Customs, Excise, Intelligence Department Officers, etc. when such information is required for investigations or detection of crimes and in the interest of national security (Clause 40.4 of this Agreement).
10. The complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, we hold that Opposite Parties  were justified in refusing the complainant to supply the aforesaid information.  
11. Resultantly, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to get this information from the Opposite Parties through police authorities by lodging a complaint with the police authorities.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 13-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member