Failure To Notify Customer Upon Reaching Credit Limit : Uttarakhand State Commission Holds BSNL Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant requested BSNL to provide international roaming services so he could communicate with his family while travelling to the U.S. The SIM requested only voice services, but it also included data access. The complainant was unaware of the cost of internet usage and was shocked to receive a bill of Rs. 4,63,770 which, by far, was for data consumption. The complainant argued that BSNL should have stopped services when the charges crossed the 5,000 security deposit, which is a practice adopted by other telecom providers. A subsequent billing statement took the total outstanding amount to Rs. 6,64,973, even after the SIM stayed unused after the trip. The complainant alleged BSNL's misconduct, citing a lack of transparent communication about data services and aggressive payment collection tactics. After paying Rs. 3,25,000 under financial duress, they approached the District Commission seeking a full refund and compensation for emotional distress. The District Commission ruled in the complainant's favour, prompting BSNL to challenge the decision at the State Commission of Uttarakhand.

Contentions of BSNL

BSNL acknowledged that a bill of Rs. 4,63,770 was issued for the services, and the complainant later paid Rs. 3,25,000 in installments. It was argued that since the facility was provided on request and partial payment was made, the complainant could not dispute the charges.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission noted that the complainant applied for international roaming and call facilities, which require proper mobile settings to activate. The complainant was recorded using these services, which led to a bill of 6,64,973. The complainant wanted to pay the amount in installments and deposited 3,25,000. The commission noted that BSNL was found to have failed to inform the complainant when their usage crossed 80% of the credit limit, which is required by TRAI rules, raising questions about BSNL's communication. However, since the complainant had used the services, it was considered fair that they should pay for them. In conclusion, the Commission decided that BSNL could not pursue the remaining balance of Rs. 3,38,003, but the complainant would not receive a refund of the Rs. 3,25,000 they had deposited. The appeal was partially allowed, with a modification of the District Commission's decision.

Case Title: General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Sh. Prem Prakash Muyal

Case Number: F.A. No. 286/2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order