REVISION PETITION NO. 2941 OF 2007

(From the order dated 17.7.07 in Appeal No.100/07 of the State Commission, Delhi)

HDFC Bank Ltd. … Petitioner

Versus

Rajender Jaina & Ors. … Respondents

REVISION PETITION NO. 2971 OF 2007

(From the orders dated 17.7.07 & 24.8.07 in Appeal No.100/07 of the State Commission, Delhi)

Standard Chartered Bank … Petitioner

Versus

Rajender Jaina & Ors. … Respondents

REVISION PETITION NO. 3032 OF 2007

(From the orders dated 17.7.07 & 24.8.07 in Appeal No.100/07 of the State Commission, Delhi)

Citibank N.A. … Petitioner

Versus

Rajender Jaina & Ors. … Respondents

REVISION PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2007

(From the orders dated 17.7.07 & 24.8.07 in Appeal No.100/07 of the State Commission, Delhi)

HSBC Bank … Petitioner

Versus

Rajender Jaina & Ors. … Respondents

BEFORE :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioners : Mr.Ajay Monga, Advocate

(in RPs 2941, 2971 & 3032/07))

For Rajender Jaina (R-1): Mr.Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate

(in all the cases)

For Bharti Airtel : Mr.K.Dutta, Advocate

For HSBC Bank : Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate

04.10.2007

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has introduced a ‘Do not call Registry’ under which a consumer has to register his telephone number stating that he should not be disturbed by various Institutions, including the Banks, for providing the telemarketing services.

As against this, learned counsel for the complainant/consumer states that such responsibility should be on the part of the Institution or the Banks to get themselves registered and ask the consumers, whosoever wants their service of telemarketing. He, therefore, submits that the entire method adopted by TRAI is against the interest of the consumers and this procedure is totally in a reverse direction. It is his contention that the consumers’ right of privacy is disturbed and on occasions when someone is working in the office, he receives unsolicited telephone calls and, hence, these calls are required to be restrained.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, submits that, as the matter is pending before the Apex Court and is likely to be heard within a few days, these matters be adjourned.

Stand over to 14^th November 2007. Meantime, interim relief to continue.

……………………………………….J.

( M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

…………………………………………

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

MEMBER

/sra/ 5,6,7,15 / Court-1