A housewife shows off her mobile phone

July 26: Irked with the service provided by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a subscriber has threatened to drag it to the consumer court.

A subscriber of CellOne service, Satish Bharatia, has demanded refund of SMS charges and compensation from the BSNL for “deceiving” customers by advertising “non-existent” services.

In a letter to BSNL general manager (mobile) A. Bhattacharjee, Bharatia said page eight of the CellOne booklet stated that to download ringtones one would have to type “top” and send an SMS to 8888. When the subscriber received an answer from 8888, he would have to select a ringtone and send another SMS to 8888.

“To my surprise when I sent an SMS to 8888 from my CellOne connection, I was informed that the service was not available,” he said.

In his letter, Bharatia said, “It is extremely confusing to find BSNL advertising or soliciting services, which it does not provide to its subscribers.”

BSNL chief general manager (Assam circle) B.K. Sinha, and Bhattacharjee are out of station and could not be contacted.

When contacted on his cell, deputy general manager (mobile) . Pegu today said he was at an official meeting in Calcutta and could not comment on this issue.

BSNL sources said the company would look into the grievances of the subscribers. They said that the BSNL had entered into a pact with Indiatimes to allow the subscribers to download ringtones by sending an SMS to 8888.

Demanding an explanation from BSNL on why subscribers are compelled to pay for facilities that do not exist, Bharatia sought refund of the SMS charges and a compensation of Rs 50,000 within a week for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

“If the BSNL fails to refund the SMS charges, pay the compensation and provide a satisfactory reply, I will move the consumer court,” he said.

On July 21, a consumer court in New Delhi ordered the cell giant, Hutch, to pay a subscriber Rs 30,000, besides refunding Rs 45 that the cellular company charged for SMS services for not delivering his messages.

The company had contended that the subscriber was charged for using the SMS service to download ringtones from Yahoo and Indiatimes at 8243 and 8888 respectively.

The consumer court, however, rejected this argument, saying that subscriber had a contract with Hutch and not with Yahoo or Indiatimes.

The court said that Hutch could not absolve itself of the legal obligation to provide service to the subscriber merely because “it has arrangements with other companies for further transmission of the SMS”.

The consumer court also ordered Hutch to ensure that the phone screen displayed the time at which the message was sent and when it was delivered.

The charges should be debited only after the time of delivery has been displayed, as envisaged by Section 14 (F) of the Consumer Protection Act, the court said.