Rs 449 recharge ‘misleads’ customer over call usage, BSNL ordered to pay compensation

“A consumer is entitled to rely upon the written representation made by the service provider at the time of purchase…When the opposite party (BSNL) itself represented that the recharge offered 84,000 seconds of free calls, an ordinary consumer would naturally understand that the benefit would be measured and deducted in seconds and not on a one-minute pulse basis,” the July 27 order read. 

Misleading leaflet

Jose claimed that he is engaged in organic and natural farming and is actively associated with various individuals, organisations and institutions in connection with agricultural activities. According to him, regular telephone communication forms an essential part of his day-to-day activities. It was the case of the complainant that on December 12, 2016, he purchased a BSNL prepaid recharge voucher for Rs 449. 

According to the leaflet supplied by BSNL, the recharge offered 84 days of validity and Rs 84,000 worth of free calls to any network. The man alleged that immediately after activation of the voucher, he noticed that call charges were deducted on a one-minute pulse basis instead of a second pulse. 

He added that even a call lasting only a few seconds resulted in deduction of one full minute from the available balance. According to him, this was contrary to the representation contained in the printed leaflet. He further submitted that he approached various officials of BSNL, in the office of the general manager, but no satisfactory response was received. 

According to him, he was compelled to spend considerable time pursuing the matter and suffered inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss. It was further alleged that BSNL deliberately continued to circulate misleading promotional materials despite having altered the tariff conditions, thereby misleading consumers and indulging in unfair trade practice. 

The complainant moved the commission seeking refund of Rs 449, compensation of Rs 10,000 towards mental agony, inconvenience and loss, litigation costs and such other reliefs as it deems fit. 

‘Error can’t be shifted on consumers’

The commission held that any error made by BSNL while printing or publishing tariff information could not be shifted to consumers who had acted in good faith based on the official information supplied to them. “The burden of ensuring that accurate and complete information reaches consumers lies entirely upon the opposite party,” it said.

It further observed that the misleading representation materially influenced the consumer’s decision to purchase the recharge, as he could have chosen another plan had the one-minute pulse system been clearly disclosed.

The commission accordingly held that BSNL’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

While Jose had sought a refund of the Rs 449 recharge amount, the commission did not order a refund, noting that the recharge had already been activated and substantially used. Instead, it directed BSNL to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for the inconvenience, financial loss, disappointment and mental agony caused by the misleading representation.

BSNL’s defence: Printing mistake 

BSNL was represented by advocates K Bhavadasan and K B Sumes, who argued that BSNL originally offered 84,000 seconds, but the tariff was revised with effect from September 17, 2016, whereby the benefit was changed to 1,540 minutes (92,400 seconds) of free calls for the same validity period of 84 days. It was specifically argued that the revised scheme was more beneficial to consumers since the total free calling duration increased from 84,000 seconds to 92,400 seconds. 

The lawyers admitted that the October 2016 printed information card inadvertently continued to mention “84,000 seconds”. According to them, this was merely a printing mistake and was immediately corrected by informing franchisees and retailers. BSNL also submitted that immediately after receiving the complainant’s representations, they offered him a free recharge worth Rs 449 without insisting upon any payment. However, according to them, the complainant refused the offer and stated that he intended to file a consumer complaint. 

Takeaway

This ruling highlights that a service provider cannot mislead consumers through incorrect information and later defend it as a mere printing mistake. If consumers rely on the information provided by the service provider while making a purchase, such misleading representation can amount to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories

Events firm ‘quits’ amid bride’s pre-wedding functions, father wins Rs 6.7 lakh payout

Policy cancelled over ‘hypertension’, insurer ordered to restore it, pay Rs 1.10 lakh

Kerala man wins Rs 1.36 lakh payout after missing connecting flight to Riyadh