Consumer Commission Rejects Complaint Against Airtel Over International Roaming Charges

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint against Bharti Crescent and Bharti Airtel Ltd., holding that the charge of ₹649 was towards activation of an international roaming pack and did not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Facts of the Case

The complainant, Amandeep Singh Gill, received a mobile bill dated 03 March 2021 in respect of his mobile number, wherein an amount of ₹649 was charged towards international roaming.

Aggrieved by the said charge, the complainant contacted the customer care of the opposite parties—Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Airtel Bharti Crescent—and also submitted a written request seeking clarification. The opposite parties informed him via email that mobile internet usage had been recorded on 01 March 2021, with the location shown as Russia.

The complainant stated that he was travelling from India to Newark (USA) between 28 February 2021 and 01 March 2021, and that the alleged usage was shown at a time when he was onboard an international flight at an altitude of approximately 35,000 feet, where mobile internet services are ordinarily unavailable. He further stated that he had separately purchased an in-flight Wi-Fi internet pack from the airline for USD 16.99, and therefore did not use mobile internet services during the flight.

Alleging that the levy of the international roaming charge was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and that his request for adjustment was not acceded to, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking refund of the charged amount along with compensation.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties

The opposite parties denied the allegations of wrongful billing and deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant had been charged ₹649 due to the activation of an international roaming daily limit pack, which was auto-activated to avoid bill shock. The billing was done as per applicable terms and conditions and system-recorded usage, calculated on Indian date and time, and the charge did not amount to any deficiency or unfair trade practice.

Observations & Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the amount of ₹649 was not levied towards alleged data usage in Russia but was charged for the activation of an “international roaming daily limit pack”, as clearly reflected in the bill. It noted that the complainant did not dispute having opted for the activation of the said pack and had also not challenged the activation of another international roaming pack charged for the same period.

The Commission held that the activation of the roaming pack was independent of the complainant's actual location or internet usage, particularly when it was undisputed that he was travelling outside India at the relevant time. The nomenclature of the pack itself indicated that it was meant for use during international travel.

Finding that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the Commission dismissed the consumer complaint and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

Case Title: Amandeep Singh Gill v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Anr.

Case No. DC/AB1/44/CC/316/2021