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

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. 278/2023