Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed M/s. Reliance Communication Limited to pay its user ₹8,000 for mental agony and litigation costs after abruptly discontinuing one of its services without prior intimation. The Commission stated that Reliance's "sudden discontinuation of the SMS pack" would have caused frustration to the complainant and that the lack of prior intimation constituted a deficiency in service.
The order, dated May 10, was issued by Preethi Chamikutty and Shraddha Jalanapurkar, members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai Suburban. The directive came in response to a complaint filed by Harish Tripathi, a resident of Kandivali, represented by his attorney Anand Tripathi. The complaint was filed against M/s Reliance Communication Limited and its chairman and managing director, Anil Ambani.
Tripathi, a pre-paid customer of Reliance, had availed the "₹19-1p SMS pack" scheme. Under this scheme, Reliance deducted ₹19 automatically from Tripathi's pre-paid monthly recharge and charged only one paise for each SMS sent from his mobile, managing the recurring accounts accordingly.
Inconsistent and incoherent messages from Reliance
In July 2013, Tripathi received inconsistent and incoherent messages from Reliance that made no sense to him. One message stated, "Amount charged for VAS SMS 1 paise pack is ₹9.50, and current main balance is ₹9.07." Within a minute, he received successive messages informing him about refunds, new balances, and recharge success, with the balance remaining less than the refunded amount or inconsistent with other figures provided.
When Tripathi contacted Reliance regarding the issue, he was initially informed that his balance was ₹149, and he should call back for grievance redressal due to a technical failure. Later, he was informed that he had been charged ₹1 per SMS instead of one paisa as per the plan due to insufficient balance. Tripathi questioned the complaint handler, highlighting that his balance was ₹149, so there shouldn't have been insufficient funds, and requested them to investigate the matter.
Instead of resolving his problem, Tripathi received low balance messages again after a few days. Believing that his SMS pack had been discontinued, Tripathi subscribed to another scheme but was frustrated to find that both packs were running simultaneously. His complaint went unheard, and he believed that any insufficiency in his recurring account was not his fault, and he should not be charged for both.
After unsuccessful follow-ups, Tripathi sent a legal notice demanding the restoration of the ₹9 scheme, a refund of the overcharged amount, and additional compensation. Reliance partially admitted the wrongful charge in their reply but fell short of providing full relief. In January 2014, Reliance resumed charging ₹1 per SMS, despite Tripathi's balance in the scheme being ₹250. Reliance claimed that the scheme was not renewed, while Tripathi argued that it was an auto-renewal scheme. With his pleas falling on deaf ears, Tripathi filed a consumer complaint requesting the production of old SMS records, a refund of the overcharge, and compensation for costs incurred.
Reliance failed to file a timely reply
During the hearing, the Commission noted that Reliance had discontinued the SMS pack without prior intimation to Tripathi, causing him inconvenience. The Commission also highlighted that Reliance failed to challenge Tripathi's assertions by not filing a timely reply. However, the Commission mentioned that Tripathi did not present any other frustrating experiences or hardships he faced, apart from the interactions with customer care. The Commission concluded that restoring the plan was not feasible due to policy changes, which might have also led to alterations in offers.
Holding Reliance responsible for the sudden discontinuation of the SMS pack, causing frustration to the complainant, and failing to provide prior intimation, the Commission directed the compensation mentioned above. The Commission rejected Tripathi's plea for a refund of ₹1,500 for overcharge and ₹1 lakh as compensation, as he was unable to justify such amounts.
