International SIM Not Activated Despite Payment: Delhi State Commission Enhances Compensation Against Reliance Jio

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed an appeal filed by complainant against Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd., holding that the complainant had suffered deficiency in service due to non-activation of an international SIM card despite payment.

The Commission modified the order of the District Commission, observing that the compensation awarded earlier was inadequate considering the hardship faced by the complainant, including inability to communicate with family, conduct financial transactions, and manage business activities during his stay abroad.

Brief facts:

The complainant, Rajeev Kumar Rakhra, an existing subscriber of a Jio mobile number, approached a Reliance store on 21 September 2018 to obtain an international SIM card for use during his travel abroad and paid a sum of ₹1101. He was assured that the SIM would be activated within two hours.

However, upon reaching Canada, the SIM card failed to activate. Despite lodging multiple complaints and making repeated requests, the issue remained unresolved. His brother, acting on his behalf, visited the opposite party's store in Delhi and, upon being advised, recharged the number with ₹149 for activation, but the SIM continued to remain non-functional. Assurances that the SIM would be activated through a representative in Canada also did not materialise.

As a result, the complainant remained without mobile connectivity for about one month, during which he was unable to communicate with his family members and faced constraints in carrying out financial transactions linked to the said mobile number, apart from disruption to his business dealings. Upon returning to India, he approached the opposite party's store and was informed that the SIM card issued to him was defective. Although another SIM card was subsequently provided, the complainant could not avail the intended services for which he had paid consideration.

The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying a defective SIM card and failing to activate it. The Commission directed refund of ₹1250 along with interest and awarded ₹5000 as compensation, inclusive of litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking enhancement of compensation.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

The opposite parties contended that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was reasonable and did not warrant any enhancement. They argued that the complainant had not suffered any mental agony or harassment due to the non-activation of the SIM card.

They further submitted that the claims regarding inability to contact family members and the resultant hardship were exaggerated, and that the damages claimed were too remote in nature to justify higher compensation.

Observations and Decision ;

The State Commission observed that compensation under consumer law must be just, fair, and adequate, and should place the aggrieved party, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the deficiency not occurred. It relied on principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009), Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (2014), V. Krishnakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), and Nand Kishore Prasad v. Mohib Hamidi (2019), emphasizing that compensation must account for mental agony, inconvenience, and overall hardship.

Applying these principles, the Commission noted that the complainant was deprived of mobile connectivity for about one month without any fault on his part and suffered inconvenience in communication, constraints in financial transactions, and disruption of business activities. It held that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was inadequate.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to refund ₹1250 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, pay ₹10,000 as compensation, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission further directed that in case of failure to comply within one month, the entire amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

Case Title: RAJEEV KUMAR RAKHRA VS RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD. & ANR.

Case No.: FA- 243-2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order