VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED Vs. A M GALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes an exception to an order dated 14/10/2011 passed in consumer complaint No. CC/09/789, Dr. Ashish M. Gala v. Vodafone Essar Ltd. and another passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban. It is a complaint against the appellant M/s. Vodafone Essar Ltd. (herein after refereed as 'Vodafone') for not rendering service to stop the unsolicited commercial communications to which respondent/complainant specifically complained on 30/08/2008 consequent to his registration under "Do not call (D.N.C.)". Forum partially allowed the consumer complaint holding that appellant -Vodafone is deficient in service and directed to pay it compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - as costs to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Vodafone. Heard both the parties. Perused the record. Main thrust of the appellant -Vodafone is on two aspects. Firstly, they are not deficient in service since even under Telecom and Solicited Commercial Communications Regulations, 2007 ('Regulations' in short), there is no positive obligation on them to stop unsolicited commercial calls. In fact, the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India ('TRAP in short) did not contemplate and acknowledged the fact that such communication or unsolicited communication calls cannot be stopped entirely. It is further contended that as per the regulations, explanatory memorandum issued to clause 16 of the Regulations, 15 days time is provided for a subscriber for making the complaint to his service provider in respect of unsolicited commercial communications and the complainant/subscriber namely, Dr. Gala failed to make any such complaint within 15 days. His complaint dated 30/08/2008 in respect of three such calls dated 31/07/2007, 02/08/2007 and 19/02/2008 since made much beyond the 15 days period, could not cast upon them any obligation for not stopping such calls.

(2.) AT the third instance, it is submitted that clause 16 of the regulations provides the procedure and, ultimately, action is to be taken against establishment who has generated such unsolicited commercial calls in the instant case, opponent No. 2 HDFC Bank Ltd.

(3.) REFERRING to the communication by E -mail dated 30/08/2008 by the complainant to appellant -Vodafone, it specifically refers to the unsolicited commercial calls received from telemarketing like HDFC, ICICI, CITI Bank, Barclays Bank and gave three instances viz.