Man on flight still ‘charged’ for international roaming, wins Rs 30,000 payout from BSNL

The bench noted that, however, the billing details dated May 20, 2017 show that on May 13, 2017 at 4.35 am IST, the complainant allegedly consumed 58,955 units of mobile data, for which Rs 65,108 was charged.

Since the complainant was on the flight during the relevant period, the commission held that the data usage reflected in the bill was impossible and that the charge of Rs 65,108 was incorrect and unjustified because the complainant was on board the aircraft during the relevant period, rendering the use of mobile data or the mobile phone impossible.

Got bill during flight time

The complainant was a BSNL subscriber who regularly paid his mobile bills on time. In May 2017, BSNL issued him a bill of Rs 89,991 for the billing period from April 16, 2017 to May 15, 2017, which included Rs 65,108 towards alleged international data usage while he was travelling from Thailand to India.

The complainant disputed the charges, asserting that at the time the data usage was shown in the bill, he was on an international flight from Thailand to India and therefore could not have used mobile data. He also contended that BSNL had collected a Rs 5,000 international roaming security deposit, which was not adjusted in the bill. Seeking clarification, he filed RTI applications, but BSNL responded that the requested billing details were not available.

Despite his representations requesting a corrected bill, BSNL disconnected his mobile services for non-payment of the disputed amount.

Aggrieved by the alleged incorrect billing and disconnection of his mobile connection, the complainant approached the commission seeking cancellation of the inflated bill, adjustment of the security deposit, restoration of services, compensation for mental agony and reputational harm, and litigation costs.

BSNL justified roaming charges

BSNL objected to the maintainability of the complaint, contending that disputes relating to telephone services were governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and therefore should be resolved through the statutory mechanism under the Act rather than before the commission.

It argued that the complainant had used international roaming services in Thailand and that the bill was generated strictly according to the applicable tariff. BSNL explained that the GPRS rate in Thailand was approximately Rs 0.85 per KB, and the complainant had allegedly consumed 72,941 KB of data on May 13, 2017, justifying the charges of around Rs 62,000.

It further submitted that the complainant’s flight departed only after the time at which the data usage was recorded, indicating that the usage occurred before boarding. BSNL also contended that the complainant’s mobile services were disconnected only because he failed to pay the outstanding bill, and if he disputed the charges, he should have first paid the bill under protest and sought a refund later.

Wrongful billing, service deficiency: Order

The commission found that the disputed BSNL bill included a charge of Rs 65,108 for 58,955 units of mobile data allegedly used at 4.35 am (IST) on May 13, 2017.

Examining the complainant’s flight tickets and travel documents, the commission noted that his flight from Bangkok to Kolkata departed at 5.10 am Thailand time, which corresponded to 3.40 am IST. Considering the time-zone difference and the flight duration, it concluded that the complainant was on board the aircraft from 3.40 am to about 5.00 am IST. Therefore, he could not have used mobile data or his mobile phone at 4.35 am IST, making the disputed billing impossible.

It further observed that, despite the complainant requesting verification of the disputed charges and issuance of a revised bill, BSNL failed to investigate the matter and instead disconnected his mobile connection for non-payment of the disputed amount. This amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The commission also noted that BSNL had not adjusted the Rs 5,000 international roaming security deposit collected from the complainant and directed that it be adjusted while issuing a revised bill.

Takeaway

This ruling reinforces that telecom operators cannot impose inflated or erroneous roaming charges without proper verification. It affirms that consumer complaints are supported by objective evidence such as travel records, and that disconnecting services over disputed bills without investigation constitutes a deficiency in service, entitling consumers to compensation and corrective relief.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chhattisgarh helpline: 1800-233-3663) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.