Archive · 2 Oct 2026
Consumer Court Upholds Waiver of Unexplained Nepal Roaming Bill
A man travelled to Nepal for one week and later received a very large mobile bill.
The bill was for Rs 1,75,427.
He said the company had not properly explained the charges.
He took the dispute to a consumer commission in Sikkim.
The commission ordered the company to cancel the bill, provide a detailed bill, restore his phone service, and pay Rs 25,000.
The company appealed the decision.
The State Consumer Commission and then the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the company’s challenges.
The courts said the company had not provided enough reliable records to prove the bill was correct.
A man was billed Rs 1,75,427 after travelling to Nepal from January 12 to January 18, 2018.
The Namchi District Consumer Commission ordered the telecom provider to withdraw the bill and issue a detailed replacement.
The district commission also directed the provider to reactivate the mobile number and pay Rs 25,000 compensation.
The State Consumer Commission, Sikkim, upheld the order after finding that call detail records were not initially provided.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the provider’s revision petition because the charges lacked corroborative evidence.
- Who
- A mobile customer and the unnamed telecom service provider involved in the disputed bill.
- What
- The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld cancellation of a Rs 1,75,427 bill, reactivation of the customer’s number, issuance of a detailed bill, and Rs 25,000 compensation.
- When
- The customer travelled from January 12 to January 18, 2018; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision petition on September 9.
- Where
- The dispute was considered by consumer commissions in Namchi, Sikkim, and nationally.
- Why
- The provider did not sufficiently substantiate the unusually high charges with timely, clear, and corroborative call records.
Consumer’s Position
Telecom Provider’s Position
Validity of the bill
Consumer’s Position
The customer argued that the Rs 1,75,427 bill was excessive and unsupported by adequate details.
Telecom Provider’s Position
The telecom provider challenged the consumer commissions’ orders and relied on call detail records to support the bill.
Evidence and call records
Consumer’s Position
The customer said he was not given the call detail records when he received or questioned the bill.
Telecom Provider’s Position
The provider later produced call detail records with its written objections, but the commissions found that the supporting witness could not adequately explain them.
Relief ordered
Consumer’s Position
The customer received cancellation of the disputed bill, a fresh itemised bill, mobile-number reactivation, and Rs 25,000 compensation.
Telecom Provider’s Position
The provider sought to overturn the earlier consumer commission decisions but did not obtain relief from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- Disputed bill
- Rs 1,75,427
- Travel period
- January 12–18, 2018
- Compensation
- Rs 25,000
- First decision
- The Namchi District Consumer Commission ordered withdrawal of the bill and related relief.
- State appeal
- The State Consumer Commission, Sikkim, dismissed the telecom provider’s appeal.
- Final decision
- The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision petition.
- Evidence issue
- Call detail records were produced late, and the provider’s witness could not explain their preparation or the charge calculation.