BSNL cut 83-year-old bedridden retiree’s landline for 2 years, ordered to pay Rs 15,000

The order noted that as far as the restoration of the landline connection is concerned, we believe that citing technological obsolescence to deny what was promised at the time of retirement is not acceptable. The failure of the opposite party to provide a valid justification for denying service to an 83-year-old employee, who later became a consumer of the opposite party, despite a clear policy, shows intent to harass.

Retiree challenges BSNL landline disconnection

Sub-Divisional Engineer had been provided a rent-free landline connection as a post-retirement service benefit, including 325 free calls every month.

In May 2024, BSNL disconnected the connection without prior notice, citing non-payment of Rs. 837. After receiving a pre-litigation notice from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), the complainant immediately paid the outstanding amount in May 2025, but the landline connection was not restored despite repeated reminders from the DLSA.

BSNL later claimed that the copper cable network had become obsolete and advised him to obtain a new FTTH connection through its commercial partners at standard rates.

Alleging that BSNL failed to migrate him to the new technology on the same concessional terms and wrongfully denied him the retirement benefit promised by the department, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service.

BSNL blames outstanding dues, technology

BSNL argued that the complaint was not maintainable and raised objections relating to maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, suppression of material facts, and jurisdiction.

The landline was disconnected because the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues on time, making the disconnection justified. The copper cable network in the area had become obsolete and was no longer feasible to maintain.

BSNL also contended that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act because he was availing a free service and had defaulted in paying the excess usage charges, entitling BSNL to disconnect the connection under Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules.

Retirement benefits can’t be curtailed

The commission rejected BSNL’s argument that the complainant was not a consumer because he enjoyed a rent-free connection. It held that since he was liable to pay charges whenever demanded (such as the Rs. 837 outstanding), the service was not entirely free and he qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

The commission found that BSNL disconnected the landline in May 2024 without issuing any prior notice or informing the complainant about the available migration options under the 2024 policy. Such unilateral action constituted a deficiency in service.

According to the commission, the policy issued on January 19, 2024, could not be applied retrospectively to employees who had retired earlier and were already enjoying the concessional facility. The complainant remained entitled to the benefit promised at the time of his retirement.

The commission held that citing technological obsolescence was not a valid reason to deny the benefits promised to the complainant at the time of his retirement. If copper lines had become obsolete, BSNL should have ensured continuation of the benefit through available technology instead of denying the service altogether.

Takeaway

This judgment establishes that service providers cannot unilaterally disconnect services or alter promised retirement benefits under the guise of technological advancement. It affirms that retired employees paying bill overages are legitimate “consumers,” and policies offering alternative tech options cannot be retroactively applied to strip vested benefits without notice.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh: 1800-180-8087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.