Delhi State Commission Enhances Compensation for Non-Activation of International SIM, Holds Reliance Jio Liable for Deficiency in Service

March 18, 2026 : The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has enhanced compensation in a consumer dispute against Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd., holding that failure to activate an international SIM card despite payment constitutes a clear deficiency in service.

The Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) allowed the appeal filed by Rajeev Kumar Rakhra and modified the order of the District Commission, observing that the compensation previously awarded was “grossly inadequate” in light of the hardship suffered.

The case arose from the complainant’s purchase of an international SIM card on 21 September 2018 for ₹1101, with assurances that it would be activated within two hours. However, upon reaching Canada, the SIM failed to function. Despite repeated complaints and an additional recharge of ₹149, the issue remained unresolved throughout his one-month stay abroad.

The Commission noted that the complainant was deprived of access to his long-used mobile number for nearly a month, which severely impacted his ability to communicate with family, conduct business, and carry out financial transactions due to non-receipt of OTPs. It also recorded that the complainant and his family were made to “run from pillar to post” without any resolution, and that the SIM was later admitted by the company to be defective.

While the District Commission had earlier granted a refund of ₹1250 with 9% interest and ₹5000 as compensation (inclusive of litigation costs), the State Commission found this insufficient. Emphasising the principle of restitutio in integrum, the Bench reiterated that compensation under consumer law must be fair, equitable, and commensurate with the actual inconvenience, mental agony, and financial disruption suffered by the consumer.

Rejecting the contention of the opposite parties that the claims were exaggerated or remote, the Commission held that denial of essential communication services during foreign travel constitutes significant hardship and cannot be trivialised.

Accordingly, the Commission enhanced the compensation and directed the respondents to:

• Refund ₹1250 with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation;
• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service;
• Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

It further directed that failure to comply within one month would attract interest at 12% per annum on the entire amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation.

The ruling reinforces the principle that service providers are accountable not only for delivering functional products but also for ensuring timely and effective service, particularly where consumers rely on such services for essential communication and financial access.

Case Details:
Rajeev Kumar Rakhra v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. & Anr.
First Appeal No. 243/2024
Decision Date: 18 March 2026