State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Siddharth Dutta vs M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd. on 19 January, 2026
FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026
SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution : 10.07.2019
Date of Reserving the order : 14.11.2025
Date of Decision : 19.01.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO.-394/2019
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SIDDHARTH DUTTA,
ADVOCATE
OFFICE: 16, TODARMAL ROAD,
BENGALI MARKET
27, LAWYERS' CHAMBER,
SUPERME COURT OF INDIA
TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI
...APPELLANT
(Through: Mr. Devesh Kumar Chavvia, Advocate
Mob: 9810071722)
VERSUS
M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED.
(A BHARTI ENTERPRISE)
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL,
BHARTI CRESCENT,
1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD,
VASANT KUNJ, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110018
......RESPONDENT
(Through: Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present : Appellant in person who is practicing advocate.
Mob.9810071722
Mr. Sumit Tokas proxy counsel for the respondent.
Mob.9818241644
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 11
FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026
SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
PER : HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 24.04.2019, passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (District New Delhi) 'M' Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, in (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Consumer Complaint bearing no. 351/2018 titled 'Siddharth Dutta vs. Bharti Airtel Limited', inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.
2. While the Appellant was Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent was Opposite Party before the District Forum.
3. The facts of the case as per the District Forum, record are as under:
"1.The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 28.01.2012 OP barred the services on the mobile NO.9810071722 of complainant on the ground that the complainant had breached his credit limit i.e. INR 22,700 granted on the mobile number in question for which the payment was also outstanding in terms of the bill generated on 25.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,40,100/- on enquiry, complainant came to know that INR 1,23,841 had been charged on the said number for blackberry services, international roaming for the period, complainant stayed in Switzerland land between 1st January 2012 to 4th January 2012. It is further informed by OP that INR 2500 were charged on the said number for the period, the complainant stayed in U.K. between 21- 31 December, 2011.
2. It is alleged that the credit limit i.e. INR 22,700 though breached long before the date of bill generation i.e. 25.1.2012, yet the OP continued the services to his number with malafide intention to further dupe and charge him. It is DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED further stated that at no point of time including the day on which the request for initiating the international roaming was made i.e. 23.12.2011, no information was given by OP regarding the rate at which the fee would be levied for the use of blackberry services on international roaming, this act of OP leads to defraud the customer. The complainant returned from the said trip on 6.1.2012, the OP never informed him about the excessive and mindless billing upto 28.1.2012. On 28.1.2012, the OP arbitrarily barred the services on the said number for inducing the complainant to make the payment without providing him any details regarding the charges levied.
3. In order to continue the services on the said mobile, the complainant was forced to make the payment to the score of INR 1,40,100 to the OP. Despite repeated requests, no details regarding the charges levied were provided by the OP till the date of the payment to the complainant. A legal notice dated 30.1.2012 was also sent to the OP to provide to the complainant, itemized copy of the bill along with the details of the charges levied to negotiate and resolve the grievance regarding the excessive billing done by OP. OP neither replied to the legal notice nor had sent the detailed bill till date. The demand raised by the OP to make the payment without providing the details of the billing to the complainant and further barring the services of the mobile in question amounts to deficiency in services on its part, hence this complaint."
4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 24.04.2019, whereby it held as follows:
"9. It is argued on behalf of complainant that his credit limit is INR 22,700, no user/subscriber is permitted to use the telephone facility for more than his credit limit made available by the concerned Telephone Co. As per TRAI's Consumer Handbook on Telecommunications, in case of credit limit, when the usage and other applicable charges reaches 80% of the credit limit an intimation to this effect DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED should be provided to the subscriber, which the OP Co. failed to do. It is further argued that the credit limit i.e. INR 22,700 though breached long before the date of bill generation i.e. 25.1.2012, yet the OP continued the services to his number with malafide intention to further dupe and charged the complainant, hence .the complainant is entitled for the refund of the bill amount as prayed as well as for compensation and litigation charges.
10. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of OP that Credit limit is just an indicator of monthly usage and in the event usage exceeds the credit limit, the user would be required to pay for all calls and services obtained even beyond the credit limit. The complainant by signing the subscriber enrolment form agreed to the terms and conditions provided therein and as per clause-7.6 in the event the subscriber exceed his pre-determine limit, he will be responsible to forthwith pay for all the services availed. The grievance of the complainant is that even though he had himself availed the services and, utilized the same, he is not liable to pay for the same as he did not know the tariff is nothing but a frivolous attempt to make undue profit. More over the OP was regularly updating the complainant with regard to the usage by sending SMSs. The 1st SMS was sent regarding the usage on 2.1.2012 thereby asking complainant to take the decision and inform the OP regarding the continuity of the usage. The Ld. Counsel for OP has drawn our attention towards the SMS sent to the complainant. The contents of which is reproduced as under :-
"Your GPRS usage has shown a sudden increase over the last 10 days. Certain GPRS based applications like Facebook Twitter etc. consume data bandwidth even when not in use Take an informed decision to keep using all such chargeable data applications while on International), roaming. For international Roaming rates, SMS RATE Switzerland to 121 or visit www.airtel.in SMS to 121 is chargeable".
11. Perusal of the SMS clearly shows that the OP had discharged its obligation of sending the message regarding the increase in usage to the complainant. It is the complainant, who has to inform to the OP regarding continuity of the services. The complainant failed to revert DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED the message sent by the OP and as such OP provided the interrupted services to the complainant during his international tour as requested by him through his request dt.23.12.2011.
12. It is admitted by the complainant in his complaint at Para-4 that he had made a request with the OP for International roaming. He had also not denied the SMS received by him from OP regarding the fact that the data usage will be chargeable upon reaching Switzerland, he did not care to check the charges and continue to consume the data services.
13. In the present case, the complainant himself requested for initiating International roaming to the OP. He had also availed the services of the OP and utilized the same but claimed that he is not liable to pay for the usage as he did not know the tariff. He further state that the OP has overcharged and cheated him for the entire sum of the said bill amount that has been generated on the basis of the charges unknown to the complainant. Perusal of the bill makes it abundantly clear that OP had charged a sum of Rs.1,23,841.18 on account of roaming which was activated and continued by the complainant during his International tour and not arbitrarily.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in services as alleged against the OP. Therefore, we finds no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed."
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present appeal, contending that the. District Forum has wrongly accepted the Respondent's version that it had fulfilled its duty by sending an SMS about increased usage, even though the alleged SMS was vague, could not be replied to, was never proved to have been delivered, and did not mention exhaustion of the credit limit or excess charges. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding directions of TRAI and DoT, which require mandatory intimation to DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED the consumer on reaching 70% of the credit limit and immediate restriction of services once the limit is breached directions which the Respondent admittedly did not follow. Further, it is submitted that the District Forum also wrongly treated the credit limit as only indicative, ignored the Appellant's clear request to activate only calls and SMS (and not BlackBerry or internet services) on international roaming, and wrongly assumed that international roaming automatically includes all services without the consumer's consent, contrary to the Respondent's own terms of service. It is further contended that the findings are one-sided and perverse, as they are based on no documentary evidence from the Respondent regarding the alleged SMS alerts, basis of charges, itemised bills, or customer care records, all of which were in the Respondent's exclusive possession. It is further submitted that the Forum further failed to consider the illegal billing far beyond the admitted credit limit of Rs. 22,700, continued billing even after the Appellant's return to India, unlawful suspension of services, extraction of payment under protest without providing an itemised bill, and the Respondent's own admission of excess charges. The Forum also ignored binding precedents in similar cases against the same Respondent and relevant TRAI clarifications, and thus decided the complaint casually, without proper application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. The respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations/grounds of the appeal and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order. It is submitted by the Respondent that credit limits are fixed only to control bad debts and that the TRAI directions do not require DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED automatic disconnection on breach of the credit limit, nor do they exempt consumers from paying for usage beyond such limit. It is further submitted that the Appellant himself had requested activation of international roaming, had continuously used data services during his foreign travel, and had received several SMS alerts regarding high usage. The Appellant was also informed about the applicable tariffs and consequences through bills, SMSs, and enrollment documents. According to the Respondent, the Appellant's denial of receipt of SMSs and his claim of ignorance about tariffs are inconsistent and make his version unreliable. The Forum, therefore, rightly held that the Appellant was liable to pay for the services availed and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the Appellant are distinguishable, while several decisions support the view that consumers must pay for services actually used even if the charges exceed the credit limit. It is also contended that the later TRAI recommendations relied upon by the Appellant are not binding and have no retrospective effect. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal, denying the remaining averments for the sake of brevity.
7. The written arguments have been filed by the parties are on record.
8. We have carefully and thoroughly perused the material on record as well as written submissions filed by either of the parties.
9. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant.
10. The admitted facts on record show that the Appellant himself requested activation of International Roaming on his mobile DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED connection on 23.12.2011 and thereafter travelled abroad during the relevant period. It is also not disputed that the Appellant used international roaming services including data/BlackBerry services, while staying in the U.K. and Switzerland, and that the disputed bill was raised on the basis of this usage.
11. The main argument of the Appellant is that once the credit limit of Rs.22,700 was crossed, the Respondent should have immediately stopped the services, and that continuing the services amounted to deficiency and unfair trade practice. However, we agree with the finding of the District Forum that the credit limit is only an internal measure to control the service provider's dues and is not a maximum cap beyond which the consumer is not required to pay. The subscriber enrolment terms clearly state that the subscriber is liable to pay for all services used, even if the usage exceeds the prescribed credit limit.
12. We also find substance in the Respondent's submission that the Appellant was properly informed about the unusual increase in data usage through SMS alerts. The SMSs on record clearly warned the Appellant about higher usage and advised him to decide whether to continue using chargeable data services while on international roaming. The Appellant has not denied that he continued to use the services after receiving these alerts, nor has he produced any evidence to show that he ever asked for data or internet services to be stopped during the relevant period.
13. As to the claim that Blackberry or internet services were not specifically requested, we find that once international roaming was activated, all services available on the handset, including data services, continued unless the subscriber specifically asked for them to be stopped. The Appellant, being an experienced user, cannot claim ignorance about the tariff or usage, especially when DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED he was clearly informed that he could check the applicable rates through customer care or the Respondent's website.
14. The claim that the SMS alerts were vague or not delivered is also not convincing. The Appellant did not produce any evidence to contradict the Respondent's case and did not deny receiving the SMSs before the District Forum. This argument has been raised for the first time in the appeal and appears to be an afterthought made to strengthen the case.
15. We also find no merit in the argument that the Respondent was required to compulsorily stop the services once the credit limit was crossed. The TRAI directions relied upon by the Appellant do not require automatic disconnection, nor do they say that a subscriber is not liable to pay for services used beyond the credit limit. The District Forum has correctly understood and applied the purpose of these directions.
16. The Appellant's reliance on later clarifications and recommendations issued by TRAI is not proper as do not apply to past cases and are only advisory in nature.
17. At this juncture, we deem it necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission titled Ashwni S/o Sudhakar Rao Faye Vs. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. as decided on 08.01.2018, wherein it was held as under:
"..18...In reply to question as to why did defendant company extend services of GPRS unilaterally, it has been stated by defendant company that GPRS service is a pre activated service and that plaintiff will be charged as per usage made from mobile number at rate of 10 p./10 KB in home network and Rs. 5.5/10KB in international roaming. In reply to question as to why did defendant company did not stop service after limit of Rs. 10,000/- was exceeded, it has been stated by defendant company that usage and browsing/download charges in international roaming are not updated in system on a real time basis due to which DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED subscriber sometimes might cross the assigned dynamic credit limit. Perusal of bills before impugned bill as filed by plaintiff with plaint shows that plaintiff has been using internet in home network and no specific letter has been placed on record by plaintiff vide which it can be seen that plaintiff instructed defendant company to stop internet services while mobile in question is being used by plaintiff in international roaming. When GPRS/internet services are active, it is trite to state that they continue whether a person is in home network or is in international roaming. Plaintiff should have got stopped GPRS services while in international roaming and it was not obligatory upon defendant company to stop the GPRS Services. Further explanation given by defendant company that download charges are not updated in international roaming in their system on real time basis is quite plausible explanation. It may be that technically, it may not be practically feasible to update exact charges of GPRS using immediately after use when a person is on some other network in some other country. Further, it has not been stated by plaintiff that the details of GPRS usage as provided to plaintiff on its asking from defendant company is not correct or that plaintiff has not used GPRS to the extent as provided in these details. It cannot be said that if defendant company asks plaintiff to pay for whatever has been used by plaintiff, the said demand becomes illegal only because it has exceeded dynamic credit limit as allowed by defendant company. It is trite to state that a person has to pay for the services which he has availed. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff for getting declared impugned bill as illegal as GPRS usage while in international roaming has not been denied by plaintiff.
Therefore, it can be said that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to rejected..."
18. From the above dicta, it is clear that a subscriber/consumer who uses services must pay for them, and exceeding that charging amounts beyond the credit limit by itself does not amount to deficiency in service.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence placed on record and has given cogent reasons for DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 11 FA-394/2019 D.O.D:19.01.2026 SIDDHARTH DUTTA VS. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED dismissing the complaint. We do not find any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 so as to warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction.
20. Consequently, we uphold the Judgment dated dated 24.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi), Delhi, in Consumer Complaint No.351/2018. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
21. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
22. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 19.01.2026 DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 11