BSNL ordered to pay Rs 15,000 compensation for misleading recharge offer: Man says Rs 449 plan promised 84,000 seconds but call balance was deducted by minutes

Noted on both. No detail missed, no editorial voice. If the court says it, attribute it to the court. If BSNL said it, attribute it to BSNL. My job is to report what happened and who said what, not to editoralise on it. Redoing it now.

Headline options

BSNL ordered to pay Rs 15,000 compensation for misleading recharge offer: Man says Rs 449 plan promised 84,000 seconds but call balance was deducted by minutes


BSNL's Rs 449 recharge said 84,000 seconds, charged by the minute: Consumer court orders Rs 15,000 compensation

Kerala man buys BSNL recharge promising 84,000 seconds of calls, gets charged by the minute: Court orders Rs 15,000

BSNL kept circulating old leaflet after changing recharge terms: Consumer court rules it unfair trade practice

Consumer court pulls up BSNL for misleading recharge leaflet, orders Rs 15,000 compensation to Kerala man

BSNL told court it was a printing mistake: Commission says that is not the consumer's problem

Kerala consumer court rules BSNL's misleading recharge brochure amounts to unfair trade practice

BSNL changed recharge plan from seconds to minutes but kept old leaflet in circulation: Court orders compensation

Rs 449 BSNL recharge promised per-second billing, delivered per-minute deductions: Consumer court steps in

BSNL ordered to compensate Kerala man after court finds recharge offer misled him into purchase

Synopsis

BSNL has been ordered to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation after a Kerala consumer commission found it misled a customer with a recharge leaflet promising 84,000 seconds of free calls while actually deducting balance by the minute. The Thrissur commission ruled the conduct amounted to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Keywords

BSNL recharge misleading offer, BSNL STV 449 consumer court, BSNL 84000 seconds recharge, Kerala consumer commission BSNL, BSNL unfair trade practice, prepaid recharge misleading leaflet, BSNL compensation order, Thrissur consumer commission, BSNL deficiency in service, prepaid recharge per second billing

BSNL has been directed to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation to a Kerala customer after a Thrissur consumer commission found that the telecom company misled him with a recharge leaflet that promised 84,000 seconds of free calls while deducting balance by the minute.

The order was passed on 27 July 2026, nearly nine years after the complaint was first filed in May 2017.

BSNL STV 449 Recharge Plan

In December 2016, the complainant, a farmer from Chalakkudy in Thrissur district engaged in organic farming and dependent on regular phone communication for his work, purchased a BSNL STV 449 prepaid recharge voucher for Rs 449.

The printed information leaflet supplied by BSNL at the time of purchase stated that the plan offered 84,000 seconds of free calls to any network, local or STD, with a validity of 84 days.

After activating the recharge, the complainant found that call charges were being deducted on a one-minute pulse basis. Even calls lasting only a few seconds resulted in deduction of one full minute from the available balance. He alleged this was contrary to what the printed leaflet represented.

BSNL Misleading Recharge Leaflet

The complainant approached BSNL's divisional engineer, accounts officer, and officials at the general manager's office. Receiving no satisfactory response, he sent a legal notice in October 2016 and filed a consumer complaint in May 2017.

Before the commission, BSNL submitted that the tariff under STV 449 had already been revised on 17 September 2016, before the complainant made his purchase. Under the revised plan, the benefit had been increased from 84,000 seconds to 1,540 minutes, which BSNL said amounts to 92,400 seconds, making it more beneficial to consumers.

BSNL further submitted that the revised tariff was communicated through SMS to all subscribers, publication on its website, and instructions issued to franchisees and retailers. It acknowledged that the October 2016 printed information card continued to mention 84,000 seconds but described this as an inadvertent printing mistake that was subsequently corrected.

BSNL also told the commission that after receiving the complainant's representations, it offered him a free recharge worth Rs 449 without requiring any payment. The complainant refused the offer and stated that he intended to file a consumer complaint.

Consumer Rights and Misleading Advertising

The commission rejected BSNL's printing mistake argument.

It held that a consumer is entitled to rely upon the written representation made by the service provider at the time of purchase. The information card, it said, is the primary document supplied to prospective consumers to enable them to make an informed choice. Since the leaflet represented the recharge as offering 84,000 seconds and contained no stipulation anywhere about deduction on a one-minute pulse basis, including in the explanatory notes and conditions printed at the bottom, an ordinary consumer would reasonably understand that the benefit would be measured and deducted in seconds.

The commission noted that BSNL's own November 2016 leaflet, issued just one month later, clearly reflected the revised benefit in minutes rather than seconds, distinguishing the two plans. This, it said, showed the distinction was material and knowable.

On BSNL's argument that internal communication to franchisees, website updates, and SMS notifications had corrected the position, the commission ruled that none of these could override or cure a misleading printed representation handed to the consumer at the point of purchase. The burden of ensuring accurate information reaches consumers, it said, lies entirely with the service provider.

The commission further held that had the per-minute deduction been disclosed at the time of purchase, the complainant might have opted for a different plan or refrained from purchasing the voucher altogether. The misleading representation, it concluded, materially influenced his purchase decision and deprived him of making an informed choice, conduct it ruled amounts squarely to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

BSNL Consumer Court Order

The commission declined to order a refund of the Rs 449 recharge amount. It noted that the recharge had already been activated and the complainant had availed the benefit during its validity period. Directing a refund in those circumstances, it said, was neither feasible nor equitable.

Instead, it directed BSNL to pay Rs 15,000 as a lump sum towards inconvenience, financial loss, disappointment, and mental agony caused by the misleading representation and deficiency in service.

BSNL must comply within 30 days of receiving the order. Failing that, the compensation amount will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order until full realisation.

Check the case judgement here: