North Delhi District Commission Holds Vodafone Idea Liable For Charging International Roaming Domestically, Abruptly Deactivating Mobile Services
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Vodafone Idea Limited liable for applying international roaming rates when the complainant was in India. Additionally, it was found guilty of abruptly deactivating both incoming and outgoing services without any prior notice or...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Vodafone Idea Limited liable for applying international roaming rates when the complainant was in India. Additionally, it was found guilty of abruptly deactivating both incoming and outgoing services without any prior notice or SMS alerts.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant, a journalist for BBC News, Delhi, was a long-time user of Vodafone-Idea's services. In Dec 2019, the Complainant sought an international roaming plan (IROAM) for a trip to Bhutan. Despite being assured of inclusive services similar to her domestic plan, she was unexpectedly charged and had her services suspended while still in India.
During her trip, the Complainant faced severe consequences due to the sudden suspension of services, including business losses and concerns for her safety. Despite her efforts to resolve the matter through communication with Vodafone Idea Ltd., she received a demand notice from the company. She was coerced into paying the demanded amount to keep her mobile number active. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (“District Commission”).
In response, Vodafone-Idea raised several objections and contended that the Complainant failed to activate an appropriate roaming pack and thus, incurred standard international roaming charges. It argued that it was within its rights to suspend services for non-payment, as per Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules. Furthermore, Vodafone-Idea argued that the deactivation of the Complainant's number was in accordance with regulatory guidelines, and the number was rightfully allocated to another customer after deactivation.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission observed that Vodafone-Idea completely denied the allegations of charging roaming rates while the Complainant was in India. However, evidence to ascertain the Complainant's usage, namely the Call Detail Records (CDR), was not provided. Despite acknowledging the existence of such records in the preliminary objections, Vodafone-Idea failed to furnish them. Instead, it submitted usage details along with the bill, which lacked a date-wise breakdown of mobile internet charges.
Additionally, Vodafone-Idea argued that due to the delay in retrieving the CDR, it received intimation of the exceeding usage only at a late stage. However, the District Commission held that it didn't provide any evidence regarding SMS alerts sent to the Complainant regarding usage or exhaustion of limits. Consequently, the District Commission held that the abrupt deactivation of incoming and outgoing services without prior warning by Vodafone-Idea constituted unfair treatment, especially when the Complainant was abroad, causing her distress and inconvenience. Moreover, the District Commission held that the decision-making process of Vodafone-Idea regarding the Complainant's alleged exceeding usage appeared arbitrary and unwarranted.
Regarding the Complainant's prayers for reactivation of her mobile number and revocation of the demand notice, the District Commission held that while reactivation could not be granted due to the number being assigned to another subscriber as per telecom authorities' policies, the demand notice lacked substantiated evidence and was arbitrary. Therefore, the demand notice was quashed.
Consequently, the District Commission held Vodafone-Idea liable to compensate the Complainant for mental harassment and agony, directing it to pay Rs. 35,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the order.