HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad-II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum here has directed a leading telecommunication services company to pay Rs 10,000 in compensation to a customer for providing his call history to a third person and for not disclosing the person’s identity.
I.Vijaya Kumar, circle inspector of Railway Protection Force at Kothagudem, was provided with an Airtel SIM by his office for both departmental and personal use, which he used from April 2011 to June 2012. As Kumar faced certain disciplinary charges and was transferred to Kazipet, he surrendered the above number to the department before moving out of the city.
Later, he came to know that the departmental authorities had obtained his call list particulars from Airtel for two days on June 3 and 4, 2012, and submitted it as a prosecution document. Kumar then approached his superior departmental authority to furnish the name of the person who obtained the call list particulars or to furnish the copy of the requisition document made to Airtel. To his shock, he was informed that no departmental person had approached the service provider nor any written requisition was made for obtaining any details.
Therefore, he sent a legal notice to Airtel on April 2, 2014 to provide information about the person who made the request but the service provider failed to do so. Vexed with their attitude, Kumar filed this complaint.
In its written version, the opposite party said that the forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as any dispute between a subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved only by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings. They further said that, in general, they furnish details only when higher authorities make a request and asked the forum to dismiss the complaint.
The bench said, “It is the duty of the service provider to give information to the complainant but they intentionally failed to do so. They even failed to provide the information before the forum even though we passed an order. Therefore, the acts of the opposite party are amount to unfair trade practice.”
Apart from compensation, the bench directed the company to provide information on the person who had approached them for the particulars of the mobile number for the said period and pay the complainant `2,000 towards costs of the case.