BSNL bill hit ₹89,991 after alleged roaming charge during flight, consumer court orders ₹30,000 relief
The complainant, a regular BSNL subscriber, received a mobile bill of ₹89,991, which included ₹65,108 towards international roaming data charges
- Jul 30, 2026,
- Updated Jul 30, 2026 4:05 PM IST
In a significant ruling for telecom consumers, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) has directed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to revise a customer's inflated mobile bill and pay ₹30,000 as compensation and litigation costs after finding that the subscriber was wrongly charged for international roaming data while he was on a flight from Thailand to India.
What was the case?
The complainant, a regular BSNL subscriber, received a mobile bill of ₹89,991, which included ₹65,108 towards international roaming data charges. According to the billing records, the data usage allegedly took place at 4:35 am (IST) on May 13, 2017.
READ THIS: Online shopping gone wrong? Kerala consumer court orders refund, ₹8,000 compensation in key ruling
However, the subscriber argued that he was aboard a flight from Bangkok to Kolkata during that period, and he couldn't have used mobile data while the aircraft was in the air. He approached BSNL seeking verification of the charges and a revised bill, but alleged that instead of resolving the dispute, the telecom operator disconnected his mobile connection.
Consumer Commission's findings
A bench comprising President Dakeshwar Prasad Sharma and members Nirupma Pradhan and Anil Kumar Agnihotri examined the complainant's flight tickets and travel documents before concluding that the disputed data charges could not have been incurred.
"It is therefore evident that during this entire period, the complainant was on board the aircraft and could not have used mobile data or his mobile phone."
The commission further held that the ₹65,108 data charge was incorrect and unjustified, as the complainant was on the flight at the time the alleged data usage was recorded.
BSNL's defence
BSNL argued that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, contending that disputes related to telephone services should instead be resolved under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The telecom operator also maintained that the complainant had used international roaming services in Thailand and that the bill had been generated according to applicable tariffs. BSNL claimed the subscriber had allegedly consumed around 72,941 KB of data, resulting in roaming charges of nearly ₹62,000, and argued that the recorded usage took place before the flight departed.
ALSO READ: Consumer Commission holds JioFiber guilty of poor service, orders ₹10,000 compensation
Commission rejects BSNL's stand
After examining the evidence, the consumer commission rejected BSNL's arguments, holding that the billing records were inconsistent with the complainant's travel documents.
The commission directed BSNL to:
- Revise the disputed mobile bill.
- Adjust the subscriber's security deposit.
- Pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.
- Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The total relief awarded to the complainant amounted to ₹30,000.
In a significant ruling for telecom consumers, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) has directed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to revise a customer's inflated mobile bill and pay ₹30,000 as compensation and litigation costs after finding that the subscriber was wrongly charged for international roaming data while he was on a flight from Thailand to India.
What was the case?
The complainant, a regular BSNL subscriber, received a mobile bill of ₹89,991, which included ₹65,108 towards international roaming data charges. According to the billing records, the data usage allegedly took place at 4:35 am (IST) on May 13, 2017.
READ THIS: Online shopping gone wrong? Kerala consumer court orders refund, ₹8,000 compensation in key ruling
However, the subscriber argued that he was aboard a flight from Bangkok to Kolkata during that period, and he couldn't have used mobile data while the aircraft was in the air. He approached BSNL seeking verification of the charges and a revised bill, but alleged that instead of resolving the dispute, the telecom operator disconnected his mobile connection.
Consumer Commission's findings
A bench comprising President Dakeshwar Prasad Sharma and members Nirupma Pradhan and Anil Kumar Agnihotri examined the complainant's flight tickets and travel documents before concluding that the disputed data charges could not have been incurred.
"It is therefore evident that during this entire period, the complainant was on board the aircraft and could not have used mobile data or his mobile phone."
The commission further held that the ₹65,108 data charge was incorrect and unjustified, as the complainant was on the flight at the time the alleged data usage was recorded.
BSNL's defence
BSNL argued that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, contending that disputes related to telephone services should instead be resolved under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The telecom operator also maintained that the complainant had used international roaming services in Thailand and that the bill had been generated according to applicable tariffs. BSNL claimed the subscriber had allegedly consumed around 72,941 KB of data, resulting in roaming charges of nearly ₹62,000, and argued that the recorded usage took place before the flight departed.
ALSO READ: Consumer Commission holds JioFiber guilty of poor service, orders ₹10,000 compensation
Commission rejects BSNL's stand
After examining the evidence, the consumer commission rejected BSNL's arguments, holding that the billing records were inconsistent with the complainant's travel documents.
The commission directed BSNL to:
- Revise the disputed mobile bill.
- Adjust the subscriber's security deposit.
- Pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.
- Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The total relief awarded to the complainant amounted to ₹30,000.