Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its officials liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for installing a wireless internet connection instead of the promised optic-fibre wired connection and for failing to refund the advance amount despite repeated assurances.The Commission comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma passed the order in a consumer complaint filed by Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, who alleged that he was misled into purchasing a service different from what was promised and was subsequently denied a refund.

Also Read: Mere Claim Of Refund Insufficient Without Evidence: Chandigarh Consumer Commission

The complainant stated that on March 13, 2024, he purchased a broadband optic-fibre wired connection from Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited for a period of one year by paying an advance amount of ₹12,729. The connection was installed on March 14, 2024. However, upon installation, he discovered that instead of an optic-fibre wired connection, a wireless connection had been provided at his residence. When he raised an objection, the officials of the company assured him that the wireless connection would function in the same manner as a wired connection and would provide unlimited data. He was also provided with a brochure indicating the same.

According to the complainant, within about 18 days of usage, he started receiving messages stating that his data had been exhausted and that he was required to recharge and pay for additional data. Feeling that he had been sold the service under false commitments, he contacted the concerned officials and requested disconnection and refund on April 3, 2024. He also sent written requests, emails and legal notices to the opposite parties seeking un-installation and refund, but no effective response was received.

The complainant further pointed out that despite the opposite parties acknowledging receipt of the returned device and assuring him through email that the eligible refund would be processed, the amount was not refunded. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the amount paid along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Despite due service of notice, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its officials failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded against ex-parte. As a result, the pleadings and evidence adduced by the complainant remained unrebutted.

After examining the material on record, the Commission noted that the complainant had paid the advance amount for a fibre wired connection but was instead provided with a wireless connection. It observed that although assurances were initially given that the wireless connection would work like a wired connection with unlimited data, the complainant started receiving messages within a short span of time requiring him to recharge due to exhaustion of data. The Commission also took note of the fact that multiple service requests were generated and emails were sent by the complainant seeking refund, and that the opposite parties had even acknowledged receipt of the device and assured processing of the refund, yet failed to return the amount.

The Commission held that the non-appearance of the opposite parties despite service of notice warranted drawing an adverse inference against them. It observed that the unrebutted evidence clearly established that the opposite parties had not provided the service as promised and had failed to refund the amount despite assurances, thereby causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

Also Read: Closure Of Chit Fund Company Without Notice Is Deficiency In Service: Kerala Consumer Commission Orders ₹8.25 Lakh Refund

Holding that the acts of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. The opposite parties were directed to refund ₹12,729 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from March 13, 2024 till the date of actual realization. They were also directed to pay ₹7,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The order was directed to be complied with within 60 days.

Cause Title: Sushil Kumar Aggarwal v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited & Others

Case No: CC/115/2025

Coram: President Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member Brij Mohan Sharma