Rs 449 BSNL Recharge Fails To Deliver Promised Call Benefits, Customer Gets Rs 15,000 Compensation

Mobile users often pick prepaid recharge plans based on calling benefits and validity. But when the terms advertised by a telecom operator do not match with the plan, they end up buying, it can lead to consumer disputes.

In a recent case, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala ordered BSNL to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to C. V. Jose, a Thrissur resident on a dispute of a Rs 449 prepaid recharge plan. The Commission passed the order on July 27, 2026, in a complaint filed by Jose in 2017.

What Was The Dispute Over BSNL’s Rs 449 Recharge

C. V. Jose purchased BSNL’s STV 449 prepaid recharge voucher for Rs 449 on December 12, 2016. According to the commission order, the information card supplied by BSNL stated that the plan offered 84 days of validity and 84,000 seconds of free calls to any network.

Jose alleged that BSNL deducted his free calling balance on a one-minute pulse basis. This meant that a call lasting only a few seconds could result in one full minute being deducted. He said the reference to 84,000 seconds indicated that the calling benefit would be measured and deducted in seconds. He later filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of the Rs 449 recharge amount and compensation for inconvenience, financial loss and mental agony.

BSNL disputed the allegations, saying the STV 449 tariff had been revised from September 17, 2016. Under the revised plan, the benefit was changed from 84,000 seconds to 1,540 minutes, or 92,400 seconds.

BSNL said the revised tariff was communicated through SMS, its website and instructions to franchisees and retailers. It admitted that the October 2016 printed information card continued to mention 84,000 seconds, but said this was an inadvertent printing error. BSNL also said it had offered Jose a free Rs 449 recharge, which he refused.

What The Consumer Commission Held

The Commission did not accept BSNL’s explanation that the incorrect information was only a printing mistake. It noted that the October 2016 information card clearly mentioned 84,000 seconds and did not state that the free calling benefit would be deducted on a one-minute pulse basis.

The Commission said, “A consumer is entitled to rely upon the written representation made by the service provider at the time of purchase.” It observed that the information card was the primary document supplied to consumers to help them make an informed choice about the recharge plan.

The Commission further said, “When the opposite party itself represented that the recharge offered 84,000 seconds of free calls, an ordinary consumer would naturally understand that the benefit would be measured and deducted in seconds and not on a one-minute pulse basis.”

It also rejected BSNL’s argument that communications through its website, SMS or retailers could correct the information printed on the card. The Commission said, “Any error committed by the service provider in printing or publishing tariff information cannot be shifted upon consumers who acted bona fide on the basis of the official information supplied by the very same service provider.”

The Commission concluded that the representation materially influenced Jose’s decision to purchase the recharge and amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

It allowed the complaint and directed BSNL and the concerned Accounts Officer to pay Rs 15,000 compensation for the inconvenience, financial loss, disappointment and mental agony suffered by Jose. The Commission did not order a refund of the Rs 449 recharge amount, noting that the recharge had already been substantially used.

BSNL was directed to comply within 30 days of receiving the order. If it fails to do so, Jose will also be entitled to 9 per cent annual interest on the Rs 15,000 compensation from the date of the order until realisation.