Unsolicited Calls Causing Annoyance Invade Privacy And Require Regulatory Action: Ernakulam District Commission

The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., in a complaint against Bajaj Finserv held that persistent calls despite requests to stop, constitute harassment and is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant filed an application under Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying for an order directing Bajaj Finserv/opposite party to stop unsolicited calls and messages and to get his number registered on their Do Not Disturb (DND) list. According to the complainant, despite repeated requests, the opposite party and their subsidiaries continued making 3-4 calls daily, which caused disturbance to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission. Contentions of the opposite party The opposite party failed to file any objections or responses. Observations by the District Commission The District Commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines unfair trade practices to include conduct that causes unnecessary harassment to consumers. Furthermore, Section 2(47) of the act prohibits harassment during the promotion of goods or services, and Section 38 empowers the Commission to grant interim relief in such cases. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1] recognized the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and privacy includes protection against unsolicited intrusion into personal life. The Commission observed that repeated calls to the complainant, especially during work hours, infringed upon his right. The District Commission ordered the opposite party and its subsidiary companies to immediately stop all unsolicited calls and communication to the complainant forthwith. The opposite party was further directed to include the complainant's information on their Do Not Disturb(DND) list. Case Title: Nithin Ramakrishnan Vs. Bajaj Finserv Ltd Case Number: C.C. No. 278/2023Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Unsolicited Calls Causing Annoyance Invade Privacy And Require Regulatory Action: Ernakulam District Commission

Ayushi Rani

Tags