Bangalore District Commission Holds Bharathi Airtel Liable For Failure To Follow TRAI Regulations And Lack Of Clarity On Tariff Details
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President) and Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Bharathi Airtel Limited liable for excessively charging two of their customers who bought an international roaming pack. The District Commission held that there was a lack of clarity regarding the...
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President) and Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Bharathi Airtel Limited liable for excessively charging two of their customers who bought an international roaming pack. The District Commission held that there was a lack of clarity regarding the charges and further, Airtel did not follow TRAI guidelines which required the operator to inform customers through SMS/USSD messages upon reaching 70% of the credit limit, among other things.
Brief Facts:
Smt. Anitha Raj and Mr Lokesh Sanjeeva Shetty (“Complainants”) subscribed to the international roaming services of Bharathi Airtel Limited (“Airtel”) while travelling for 6 months between Indonesia and Canada. When the Complainants reached Maldives, they activated a pack of Rs. 149 for international roaming. However, Airtel raised a total bill amounting to approximately Rs. 1,03,826, approximately. The Complainants had to deposit the bills under protest. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka (“District Commission”).
The Complainants argued that the tariff details for the roaming pack were not provided, and Airtel had failed to adhere to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) guidelines, specifically related to credit limits. Moreover, excessive bills amounted to a deficiency in service on the part of Airtel.
On the other hand, Airtel argued that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction over the case. They maintained that standard rates for international roaming services in the Maldives were available, and the terms and conditions agreed upon when activating the Rs. 149 pack clearly stated the countries covered for international roaming offers, as well as the standard rates for countries not covered under the offer. They also contended that in this case, the courts in New Delhi had exclusive jurisdiction.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that the detailed bill provided by Airtel lacked clarity and specificity regarding the charges incurred while the complainants were in the Maldives. Furthermore, the District Commission pointed out that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) guidelines stipulated the need for the operator to inform customers through SMS/USSD messages upon reaching 70% of the credit limit and to bar services if the credit limit was exceeded until the necessary amount was deposited. However, these guidelines had not been followed by Airtel.
Consequently, the District Commission held that the complainants had indeed suffered from a deficiency in service on the part of Airtel. The District Commission ordered Airtel to issue a detailed bill about the roaming charges during the complainants' stay in the Maldives from April 26, 2018, to May 3, 2018. Additionally, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the mental agony endured by the complainants and another Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs.
The District Commission granted 45 days for Airtel to comply with this order, stipulating that should they fail to do so, the awarded amount would accrue interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until full realization.
Case Title: Anitha Raj and Anr. vs Bharathi Airtel Ltd and Anr.
Case No.: CC/1024/2018
Advocate for the Complainant: Shankar B
Advocate for the Respondent: Sunil Prasad
Click Here To Read/Download Order