Chandigarh, 18.12.2025 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its officials guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for installing a wireless internet connection in place of a promised optic-fibre wired connection and for failing to refund the advance amount despite repeated assurances.
The order was passed by the Commission comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma in a consumer complaint filed by Sushil Kumar Aggarwal.
According to the complainant, on March 13, 2024, he purchased a one-year broadband optic-fibre wired connection from Reliance Jio by paying an advance of ₹12,729. The connection was installed the next day. However, he soon discovered that instead of a fibre wired connection, a wireless connection had been installed at his residence.
When the issue was raised, company officials assured him that the wireless connection would function in the same manner as a wired connection and would provide unlimited data. A brochure reflecting these assurances was also provided. However, within about 18 days of use, the complainant began receiving messages stating that his data had been exhausted and that additional recharge was required.
Alleging that the service had been sold on false promises, the complainant sought disconnection and refund on April 3, 2024. He followed this up with written requests, emails and legal notices. Despite the company acknowledging receipt of the returned device and assuring via email that the eligible refund would be processed, no amount was refunded.
Aggrieved by the inaction, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and sought refund, interest, compensation and litigation costs. Despite service of notice, Reliance Jio and its officials failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded against ex parte. Consequently, the complainant’s evidence remained unrebutted.
After examining the record, the Commission observed that the complainant had paid specifically for a fibre wired connection but was instead provided a wireless one. It noted that assurances of unlimited data were contradicted by subsequent data exhaustion messages, and that repeated refund requests were ignored despite clear acknowledgements by the company.
The Commission held that the non-appearance of the opposite parties justified drawing an adverse inference against them and concluded that the unrebutted evidence clearly established deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund ₹12,729 with interest at 9 percent per annum from March 13, 2024 till realisation. They were also directed to pay ₹7,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The order is 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
