By Udumula Sudhakar Reddy
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-2 has ruled in favour of a cell phone user and ordered service provider Airtel to disclose the names of those who had asked for his call data records.
The Forum gave the ruling in a case pertaining to an inspector of police with the Railway Protection Force, Mr I. Vijaya Kumar, a resident of Domalaguda, after Airtel refused to divulge the details of persons who had asked for his call data records.
The police department had used Mr Kumar’s call data as evidence against him in a departmental disciplinary proceedings case.
The consumer forum judgment has gained signif- icance in view of police authorities obtaining CDR (call data records) often from mobile phone operators without the consent of the user.
The complainant had alleged in the petition that he had been provided with a Common User Group (CUG) mobile number by the department for depart- mental and private use.
"The complainant used the mobile number provided to him from April, 2011 to June, 2012. He had to face certain disciplinary charges and was transferred to Khajipet and hence handed over the phone to the department. The departmental authorities obtained call list partic- ulars from Airtel and used the same as a prosecution document against him,” said sources.
The complainant asked Airtel for details of those who had obtained his call list. The company refused.
Airtel said that the forum had no jurisdiction to decide on the complaint since as per previous judgments, disputes between a subscriber and the telegraph authority could only be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings. However, the forum ruled that the acts of the opposite party were “deficiency of service” or “unfair trade practices” and ordered Airtel to provide the details of those who had sought the call list of the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000 compensation towards mental agony and Rs.2000 towards costs.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-2 has ruled in favour of a cell phone user and ordered service provider Airtel to disclose the names of those who had asked for his call data records.
The Forum gave the ruling in a case pertaining to an inspector of police with the Railway Protection Force, Mr I. Vijaya Kumar, a resident of Domalaguda, after Airtel refused to divulge the details of persons who had asked for his call data records.
The police department had used Mr Kumar’s call data as evidence against him in a departmental disciplinary proceedings case.
The consumer forum judgment has gained signif- icance in view of police authorities obtaining CDR (call data records) often from mobile phone operators without the consent of the user.
The complainant had alleged in the petition that he had been provided with a Common User Group (CUG) mobile number by the department for depart- mental and private use.
"The complainant used the mobile number provided to him from April, 2011 to June, 2012. He had to face certain disciplinary charges and was transferred to Khajipet and hence handed over the phone to the department. The departmental authorities obtained call list partic- ulars from Airtel and used the same as a prosecution document against him,” said sources.
The complainant asked Airtel for details of those who had obtained his call list. The company refused.
Airtel said that the forum had no jurisdiction to decide on the complaint since as per previous judgments, disputes between a subscriber and the telegraph authority could only be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings. However, the forum ruled that the acts of the opposite party were “deficiency of service” or “unfair trade practices” and ordered Airtel to provide the details of those who had sought the call list of the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000 compensation towards mental agony and Rs.2000 towards costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment