A consumer court ordered Airtel to refund Rs.592 and pay Rs.5,000 compensation after a customer paid for 5G services that were never provided. Rejecting Airtel’s defence, the court noted the company failed to prove it had ever personally verified the complainant’s handset.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, directed Bharti Airtel to refund Rs.592.32 spent on recharge and to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to complainant Arun Jaryal.
The order came after the commission found that although Jaryal paid for 5G services, he received only an “E” (Edge) signal on his mobile phone.
A bench comprising President Baldev Singh and Member Nidhi Sharma was hearing a plea filed by an Airtel SIM user. The bench observed that there was no specific statement in the company’s defence showing that Airtel had personally checked the complainant’s handset before concluding that it was not compatible with 5G services.
The Court said on June 10,
“As per plea of defence taken by the Airtel that the cell phone of complainant was not compatible for 5G internet services and when it was in the knowledge of company that the hand set of complainant is not compatible for 5G internet services, then the company should not have allowed the complainant to recharge for 5G internet services against the amount of Rs 592.32 and the said amount must have been refunded to the complainant by the company when they came to know that the cell phone of complainant is not compatible,”
According to the complaint, Arun Jaryal uses an Airtel post-paid connection and, starting June 22, 2024, he faced persistent issues with his Airtel internet service. He alleged that the service had not been functioning properly even after repeated efforts to resolve the problem.
Jaryal said he made several complaints to Bharti Airtel Limited. Although Airtel made some attempts to address the issue, the internet continued to remain faulty. In July 2024, Jaryal switched from a post-paid plan to a prepaid billing plan and paid ₹592.32 to Airtel.
He further claimed that the 5G service remained unavailable, as his phone consistently showed an “E” (Edge) signal instead of the expected 5G indication. He argued that a 5G SIM used in a 5G-capable phone should display a 5G connection.
Jaryal stated that he contacted customer support and was assured that the issue would be resolved soon, but it was not fixed till date. He claimed Airtel’s actions amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. He also alleged that he informed the company through phone calls and emails on multiple occasions, but his complaints were not addressed. He said he also approached the concerned office, but received no cooperation.
Bharti Airtel, through advocate Kumar Kaustubh, denied the allegation that the 5G service was non-functional. Airtel claimed the complainant was using a Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro Max, which is a 4G-only device and therefore lacks the necessary hardware for 5G connectivity.
Airtel argued that handset malfunctions, hardware defects, or software problems in the user’s device could affect network connectivity and internet services, which are said to be beyond the service provider’s control.
The commission also considered Jaryal’s claim that on July 7, 2024, he recharged his Airtel SIM by paying R.592.32 specifically to avail 5G internet services. He alleged that the service still did not work and that the signal on his phone remained “E” rather than 5G. He maintained that his phone was 5G-compatible, yet he could not access 5G after paying for it.
Airtel’s defence, the complainant argued, should not have allowed the recharge to be processed if the company already knew the handset was not compatible. He also pointed out that while Airtel may have initially apologized for the inconvenience, it later closed the complaint and asked him to file an appeal. Jaryal reiterated in his rejoinder that his handset was 5G compatible.
The commission noted that Airtel’s plea did not state that it personally verified or checked the complainant’s handset before denying 5G service.