Mandi consumer panel directs BSNL to pay Rs 30K compensation to subscriber

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the General Manager of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), Mandi, to allot a complainant a mobile number of his choice after his earlier number was re-allotted to another subscriber without prior notice.

The commission has also ordered BSNL to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for causing harassment and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.

In his complaint Mahesh Chander Sharma, an advocate practising in the District Courts at Mandi, Sharma stated that he had been using two BSNL mobile numbers — 9418113350 and 9418770007 — for many years. The latter number had been in continuous use for more than 15 years and was primarily used for his office work and professional communication.

Sharma submitted that due to network problems in his village during the Covid pandemic, he could not recharge the number for a certain period of time.

Later, Sharma discovered that his phone number had become unreachable.

Upon enquiring from BSNL officials, he was told that the number had already been re-allotted to a new subscriber. The complainant wrote to BSNL on December 13, 2021, requesting restoration of his number. However, neither the number was restored nor was he informed about the identity of the new subscriber.

Sharma also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking details about the re-allotment, but the information was not provided. During the proceedings, it was admitted that no written communication or message had been sent to the complainant prior to the re-allotment of the number.

Following this, the complainant filed a complaint with the consumer commission seeking restoration of the number and compensation for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused to him.

In its reply, BSNL contended that the number had not been recharged for more than 90 days and was therefore automatically re-allotted to a new consumer in accordance with the guidelines of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The telecom company requested the dismissal of the complaint on these grounds.

However, the complainant argued that as per TRAI norms, after deactivation of a mobile number, the service provider must provide a grace period of 15 days and inform the consumer so that the number can be reactivated. He alleged that BSNL failed to provide any such notice or grace period, thereby violating the norms.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the consumer commission observed that BSNL had not issued the mandatory notice to the complainant before re-allotting the number. It held that this constituted “deficiency in service” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.