deficiency in service, Maharashtra
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum has upheld a lower court order
which asked the service provider to
pay Rs. 20,000 compensation and Rs.
5,000 costs to a doctor for failing to
stop unsolicited commercial
communications.
"Vodafone had failed to discharge its
obligation and acted with imperfection,
shortcoming or inadequacy in the
nature and manner of purpose, which
is required to be maintained by it
under the regulations," observed S R
Khanzode and Dhanraj Khamatkar in
their order.
"Thus, deficiency in service within the
meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Act
is well established as against
Vodafone," the forum members
further said while dismissing an appeal
filed by Vodafone against the
consumer court judgement.
Dr. Ashish Gala, who practices in
suburban Mulund, had registered with
Vodafone on the "Do not Call list".
Yet, he got calls from various
companies following which he filed a
complaint with the service provider on
August 30, 2008, saying Vodafone
should have ensured that he did not
get the calls.
Vodafone argued that it was not
deficient in service as under Telecom
and Solicited Commercial
Communications Regulations, 2007,
there is no positive obligation on them
to stop unsolicited commercial calls.
In fact, Vodafone said, Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India did not
contemplate and acknowledge the fact
that such communication or unsolicited
communication calls cannot be
stopped entirely.
Vodafone further contended that as
per 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. However, the
complainant, Dr. Gala, had failed to
make any such complaint within a
fortnight.
Post a Comment