Date of Filing : 12.04.2018

Date of Disposal : 25.06.2021

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF JUNE-2021

PRESENT

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.553/2018

Deepak.R

No.157, 2^nd Cross

(2^nd Main,), VHBCS,

Behind Shankara Mutt,

W-C-R, Mahalakshmipura

Post, Bengaluru-86.                                      ..Appellant/s

(By Party In-Person)

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.,

Ground Floor, ‘B’ Block,

Maruthi Infotech Centre,

11/1 & 12/1, Koramangala

Intermediate Ring Road,

Amarjyothi Layout,

(By Sri.BJM, Advocate)

O R D E R

 Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant/appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 passed by Fourth Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1542/2011. (for short District Commission).
2. I.A.No.1 is filed U/s.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 221 days in preferring the appeal. The Complainant/appellant herein is party in-person, while the respondent/OP is represented by learned counsel. The parties to this appeal hereinafter referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Commission.
3. The Complainant has sought for grant of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs alleging deficiency in service against OP.1 & 2 for the period from 01.09.2010 to 17.07.2011, in not updating the status of his sim card 9620061761 to the DND register within the stipulated time.
4. The Commission heard the Complainant in person and heard the learned counsel for the OP.
5. Now, the Commission has to examine, whether impugned order dtd.03.08.2017 passed in CC.No.1542/2011 is contrary to the facts and law as appealed by the Complainant required to be interfered  in this appeal ?.
6. If we examine the impugned order could see, holding of   detailed enquiry on the alleged deficiency in service made against OP.1 & 2 from the period from 01.09.2010 to 17.07.2011. We could also find appreciation of evidence of the Complainant as well as the documentary evidence placed on record marked as Ex-A1 to A35 and Ex-B1 & B2 to record negative findings in respect of allegation of the Complainant made as against Ops, thereby ordered to dismiss his complaint with no order as to cost.
7. It is also found from enquiry records, that the Complainant had  initiated similar such complaint in CC.No.1106/2010, which came to be dismissed on 16.08.2010 by First Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in view of Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act (I.T.Act) on the ground that the telemarketers and other service providers cannot be controlled by OP. Further found as the  Complainant being associated with spiritual organisations, few bankers and also advertising in classifieds of weekly, filed this case is uncalled for as the telemarketers are to be controlled only through concerned operators as per TRAI regulations, thereby found no deficiency in service on their part in providing service to the Complainant. Thus, considering these aspects of the matter as found in para 13 of the impugned order, still he is claiming his right for the previous periods of his application and hence such e-mail transactions need not be looked into and hence his contention that he received such unwanted sms from 01.09.2010 also cannot be accepted as deficiency in service of OP.1. In this regard, he has filed memo admitting the date of the applied form as 11.12.2010 specifically stating that it was eight months prior to filing the present petition. Further in para 17 we could see from the impugned order, Ex-A28/Guidelines for customers itself, wherein it is stated that, whenever he received unsolicited commercial communications, he can make a complaint furnishing the particulars within 3 days from the date of receipt of such commercial communications. Ex-A6 list shows that the messages at serial no.1 & 2 received on 01.09.2010 and on 05.09.2010 were reported on 09.09.2010. The serial no.12 shows that the messages of 16.09.2010 and of 18.09.2010 were reported on 11.10.2010. The serial no.13 shows that the messages of 03.11.2010 were reported on 19.11.2010. It is therefore such reports show that, the Complainant has not reported within stipulated period prescribed as per Ex-A28. Further to be noted herein that, OP.2 has no role what so ever in the transactions, as such we  are of the view District Commission has rightly  appreciated  facts and law to dismiss the case against OP, which cannot be interfered in this appeal for the grounds of appeal.
8.  We could also see, the District Commission in para 20 of the impugned order appreciated Ex-A7 to A11/e-mails relating to September to November 2010 which is earlier period of Ex-A31 format dtd.11.12.2010 and rightly held no importance could  be attached in relation to the alleged complaint. We could see from Ex-A8 the OP.1 has informed to send sms as DND to 1909 so that all his telemarketing calls and messages would be stopped. In Ex-A9 the Complainant has stated that the list attached by him probably belongs to miscellaneous telemarketers who did not have been registered with Vodafone and therefore has been getting UCC from these miscellaneous marketers. In Ex-A10 the OP.1 has informed that it has forwarded to the concerned respective operators to take needful action. Further in respect of Ex-A12 & A13 the alleged phone call information are held   cannot be relied on, wherein the Complainant has informed that if he starts sms DND to 1909/1900 the unsolicited sms coming to his mobile would be stopped.
9. In the above such circumstances, all these facts disclose that the Complainant started interaction to find faults and such process can be dealt by the TRAI authority and not by the Commission U/s.7B of IT Act. In fact it was observed in appeal No.1949/2011 dtd.02.08.2011 and appeal No.4578/2010 dtd.29.03.2011 of this Commission, which are decided, followed by the principles enunciated in the decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631. It was held, the alleged interactions are subject matter of the day to day processes had to be dealt between the Complainant and the service provider before the appropriate authority U/s.7B of the IT Act.
10. In the above such conclusion, the impugned order passed by the Commission below cannot be interfered for the grounds of appeal set out by the Complainant/appellant herein. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission along with LCR.

12. Send a copy of this Order to the parties to the appeal.

Lady Member                          Judicial Member

*NSG*