CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs. NIVEDITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the above noted appeals arise out of common order dated 26.12.2006, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') all these appeals are being disposed of by present common order.

(2.) Brief facts are that complainant - Ms. Nivedita Sharma-Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) filed a complaint before the State Commission on the allegations that she is a valid subscriber of the GSM mobile services provided by Bharti Tele-Ventures-Appellant No.2/O.P. No.1 (in F.A. No.52 of 2012) under the brand name, Airtel. The complainant subscribed to the post-paid services provided by it since the year 2006. At the time of taking the connection a kit was provided to the complainant which inter alia included terms and conditions governing the services to be provided by Airtel to the complainant as a subscriber. It is alleged that about a year after subscribing to the post paid connection, complainant started getting calls from various banks/financial institutions and other companies for marketing their products and services. Initially such unwarranted calls were ignored; however, soon the frequency of calls started increasing and on certain days the complainant used to receive around ten to fifteen calls causing tremendous disturbances. The complainant lodged a complaint with the customer service of the Airtel. There was however, no response of these complaints and the menace continued uninterrupted.

(3.) Thereafter a written complaint was lodged with the Airtel. In the said complaint, complainant clearly emphasized the fact that such unsolicited calls were not only severely disrupting complainant's work but also posed a grave threat & jeopardized safety & security of the complainant, due to the sharing of her confidential information such as name, address and financial standing etc. That compelled by such circumstances, the complainant lodged another complaint with the Customer Service Department of the Airtel about the unsolicited calls & SMS. The complainant clearly instructed the opposite party that the complainant should not receive any such calls or SMS in future. In response to such complaint, even though the SMS from the Airtel ceased, the calls and SMS from banks/financial institution continued unabated.