Data snapshot: 14 July 2026 (IST): We analysed WhoseNo’s India report database, separated explicit spam labels from vague comments, and checked possible company connections against official sources. The result is a list of the most consistently reported numbers—not a list of proven scammers.
WhoseNo currently contains 16,644 published community reports from India, covering 20 May 2018 through 13 July 2026. But the biggest number in a raw all-time count is not necessarily the biggest spam caller. Old entries include duplicates, malformed numbers and even promotional messages posted into comment fields. For this report, we therefore focused on the structured-label period beginning 6 April 2026.
In that current period, the database recorded 5,390 reports across 1,577 numbers. Of those, 3,297 were explicitly classified as spam/robocall, marketing/telemarketing, scam suspicion, harassment or debt collection; 525 were explicitly marked safe. We ranked numbers first by distinct non-blank reporter signals and then by negative-report volume. This reduces, but cannot eliminate, the influence of repeated submissions.
Most consistently reported spam numbers in India
| Rank | Number | Negative / total reports | Negative share | Distinct negative signals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 08035765964 +91 80 3576 5964 |
55 / 79 | 69.6% | 47 |
| 2 | 08035067014 +91 80 3506 7014 |
60 / 105 | 57.1% | 45 |
| 3 | 02231306363 +91 22 3130 6363 |
52 / 72 | 72.2% | 44 |
| 4 | 01408368079 +91 140 8368079 |
47 / 75 | 62.7% | 42 |
| 5 | 02231203891 +91 22 3120 3891 |
39 / 46 | 84.8% | 32 |
| 6 | 01408400778 +91 140 8400778 |
34 / 52 | 65.4% | 31 |
Method note: “Negative” means a user selected a clear negative category in the report or call-type field. It is not a legal finding about a subscriber. The percentages use reports from 6 April through 13 July 2026. Distinct signals are deduplicated using non-blank reporter IP values, an imperfect proxy because IP addresses can be shared or change. This is a self-selected WhoseNo sample, not a representative measure of all calls in India. Caller ID can also be spoofed.
What people said about these numbers
1. 08035765964: mostly junk and marketing labels
This number produced 55 explicit negative classifications from 79 current-period reports. Most evidence consists of structured spam and marketing labels; the few usable narratives are very short. As supporting context, app call logs add 55 spam-flagged observations from 39 distinct app user IDs, with 50 blocked calls. App flags are not independent votes and may reflect automatic or administrative classification.
A handful of caller-name records mention “Flipkart Customer Service,” but we found no official Flipkart source that confirms this number. That label may come from a caller-ID database, a user’s address book or what a caller claimed. It should not be treated as proof of ownership.
2. 08035067014: heavy blocking, little reliable identity
Although 08035067014 has slightly more negative reports than the first-ranked number, it has fewer distinct reporter signals. Most reports use structured spam or marketing labels rather than detailed narratives. As supporting context, app data records 62 spam-flagged calls from 45 distinct app user IDs, 60 of which were blocked; those flags may include automatic or administrative classification.
One user mentioned a delivery call, while the directory has an unverified “Kingoo” label. Neither is enough to identify the subscriber. The useful conclusion is limited but clear: many recipients considered calls from the displayed number unwanted.
3. 02231306363: commonly associated with courier calls
This Mumbai-format number has the clearest recurring business theme. Free-text comments mention deliveries, missing parcels and an unexpected Nykaa order, while directory and app caller-name fields repeatedly use Blue Dart spelling variants. We could not locate this number on the official Blue Dart pages checked.
The mixed evidence matters. Some reports may involve genuine last-mile delivery calls, wrong numbers or recipients who did not expect an order; others classify the calls as spam, marketing or scam suspicion. The responsible description is “commonly displayed or reported as a Blue Dart delivery number,” not “owned by Blue Dart” and not “a proven scam number.” If a caller asks for payment or a one-time password, close the call and verify the shipment in the retailer or courier’s official app or website.
4. 01408368079: promotional calls with conflicting brand claims
Users associated this number with offers for Physics Wallah batches, Airtel recharges, loans and, in one account, a demand for money. Those unrelated descriptions are a warning against assigning the number to one company. Physics Wallah’s official contact page lists different support numbers, and we found no official source connecting this line to the company.
The stored 0140 prefix, shown internationally as +91 140, is a stronger clue than any single crowd label: India reserves the 140 series for promotional calling. A promotional line can also be shared across more than one business or campaign.
5. 02231203891: the highest negative share in the top six
Thirty-nine of 46 current-period reports were explicitly negative, an 84.8% share. Users selected a broad mix of spam, marketing, scam-suspicion, harassment and debt-collection categories, but the comments do not establish a dependable company identity. This is a good example of a strong nuisance signal without a verified owner.
6. 01408400778: promotional-series number, owner unverified
This number accumulated 34 negative reports from 52 submissions and 31 distinct negative signals. The WhoseNo directory contains a “Jio UPS” crowd label, but the report narratives and official sources do not corroborate it. Because the 0140 range is used for promotional traffic, attribution to a particular brand would be speculative.
The biggest pattern is the 140 promotional series
The most useful finding is larger than any one number. Numbers beginning 0140 generated 1,050 of the 3,297 explicit negative reports in the current period—31.9%—across 245 numbers. Of those numbers, 218 had at least one negative classification. The next-largest four-digit cluster, 0803, produced 220 negative reports.
TRAI’s official 140/160 guidance explains that 140-series numbers are designated for promotional voice calls. TRAI’s 2025 telecom regulation also discusses 140-series numbers that may be shared by multiple senders. That means the prefix can help explain why a call is commercial, but it cannot prove which company placed a specific call.
The report mix supports the same conclusion. Spam/robocall and marketing/telemarketer labels together made up 63.1% of explicit negatives, while scam suspicion accounted for 18.1%. In other words, WhoseNo submissions contained far more nuisance and promotional labels than explicit scam allegations.
Why we did not use the raw all-time “winner”
A raw count would place 04872223000 first with 387 rows. A manual audit found that many of those rows were repeated promotional comments presenting unauthenticated numbers as “WhoseNo customer care” in 2020 and 2021. They appear to be abuse of the comments section, not 387 independent complaints about calls from 04872223000.
Other legacy listings contain duplicated templates, short codes and formatting variants. Publishing them as a definitive blacklist would reward noisy data and could falsely accuse a legitimate number. Our current ranking instead uses exact structured labels, stored national-format numbers, distinct signals and call-log corroboration.
What to do after a suspicious or unwanted call in India
- Do not share a banking, payment, login or unexpected-call OTP, UPI PIN, card details or remote-access code. Only use a parcel handover code after independently confirming that you expected the order and that the delivery agent is physically present.
- Verify independently. End the call, open the company’s official app or type its known website yourself. Do not call a “customer-care” number supplied in an SMS, comment or search ad.
- Report unwanted commercial communication quickly. TRAI says UCC complaints should be made within three days through 1909, your telecom provider’s DND channel or the DND app. See the official TRAI complaint guide.
- Report suspected fraud attempts to Chakshu. The Department of Telecommunications’ Sanchar Saathi portal accepts reports about suspicious calls, SMS and WhatsApp messages.
- If money was lost, act immediately. Call 1930 and file a report at the official National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Contact your bank or wallet provider through its official channel at once.
- Add your experience to the number page. Describe what happened without posting private information. A specific, factual report is more useful than a one-word accusation.
You can also browse the WhoseNo India number directory or read our guide to why spam calls happen and how to reduce them.
Frequently asked questions
Does a high report count prove that a number is a scam?
No. It shows that many users disliked or distrusted calls displaying that number. Legitimate marketing, wrong-number delivery calls, shared outbound lines and caller-ID spoofing can all produce complaints. Look at recent comments, the negative share and official company contacts together.
Are all 140-series calls scams?
No. The 140 series is designated for promotional voice calls. A call can be legitimate marketing and still be unwanted. Never infer a specific owner from the prefix alone.
How can I verify a courier or marketplace caller?
Do not use contact details supplied by the caller. Check the order inside the retailer or courier’s official app or website, then contact support from there. Never provide a payment, login or unexpected-call OTP to cancel or reschedule a parcel; use a genuine delivery handover code only after confirming an expected order and the agent at your door.
Editorial transparency: Counts reflect a read-only database snapshot taken on 14 July 2026 and will change as new reports arrive. Community classifications and caller names are allegations or user-supplied signals, not ownership records or findings of wrongdoing.
