PRAKASH SANKAR Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a BSNL consumer, challenged the post-paid mobile bills issued to him by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat under Sec. 22 (c) (1) r/w 22 A (b) (ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, by filing O.P.No.40/2016, Ext.P1. He contended that he had travelled to Dubai on 30/11/2015 after activating international roaming on his postpaid number 9447703014 and obtaining a separate BSNL SIM for roaming.

(2.) The respondent-BSNL contended that the petitioner was under Data Plan 501, which allowed 5 GB of free data on international roaming with effect from 23/11/2015, and as his usage exceeded 500% of his credit limit, an automated pre-barring message was triggered on 3/12/2015, leading to the suspension of services. The detailed billing records showed that he used Rs.20,209.84 on 30/11/2015, Rs.55,613.05 on 1/12/2015, Rs.24,494.88 on 2/12/2015, and Rs.9,664.48 on 3/12/2015. BSNL clarified that smartphones and high-end GPRS-capable devices continuously consume data due to background applications, which are likely to lead to high charges. The consumer has the option to keep these applications enabled/disabled while on international roaming. International roaming usage is received after two days, triggering a pre-barring message, with an interim bill issued on 31/1/2016 and the final invoice amounting to 1,27,462/-. All charges were ? correctly billed as per the tariff, and the contention of the petitioner that he has not used the BSNL connection while on roaming is baseless.

(3.) The Permanent Lok Adalat found, after examining the oral and documentary evidence and that of the expert, that the petitioner could not prove that the usage claimed by the BSNL was not correct. The detailed breakdown of Call Data Records provided by the Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL showed continuous internet usage and calls made by the petitioner during the relevant period justified the billing. Accordingly, finding that the petitioner failed to prove any billing error or overcharge, passed an award under Sec. 22C(8) of the Act dismissing the petition.