The district consumer disputes redressal commission, Ahmedabad (additional) has ordered Vodafone Idea Limited (VI) to refund excess charges levied on a subscriber and compensate him for harassment and mental agony, holding the telecom company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The judgement, delivered on 29 August 2025, came in response to a complaint filed by Prof JP Singh, a retired professor of IIM Ahmedabad and a resident of Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Prof Singh had been using a VI postpaid SIM connection with a fixed monthly rental of Rs470.32. In April 2022, he subscribed to YouTube Premium at a cost of Rs129 per month, inclusive of taxes, through the VI billing system, which was the only available mode of payment. However, from June 2022 onwards, his monthly bills reflected an additional charge of Rs54 over and above the agreed subscription cost. Prof Singh alleged that this excess amount continued to be charged every month despite his repeated requests for clarification. He also pointed out that VI imposed a penalty of Rs100 for late payment of a bill of Rs500, which he argued was an unreasonable and arbitrary levy.
Prof Singh produced a series of documents in support of his case, including copies of bills, payment receipts, SMS notifications, screenshots of the subscription, letters sent to VI, postal acknowledgements, email correspondence with both the company and YouTube support, as well as call records and evidence of service interruptions. He also sought a direction to Google Ireland Limited, which operates YouTube Premium, to open a bank account in India for direct payments and to establish a functional customer care facility in the country.
VI, represented by counsel, denied all allegations and contended that the Rs54 excess charge represented a convenience fee of 16% applicable on app purchases made through the VI billing platform. The company argued that it had merely acted as a billing intermediary and that the actual service-provider was Google Ireland Limited. It further submitted that the complainant had himself committed an error while attempting to contact customer care, by addressing his emails to “
[email protected]” instead of the correct “
[email protected],” and that this was the reason his communications went unanswered. VI also suggested that Prof Singh continued to use the YouTube Premium service and make payments which, it claimed, indicated
mala fide intent in pursuing the complaint.
Google Ireland Limited, which was also named as a party, failed to submit a written statement or objections despite being served notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte against it. Nevertheless, the Commission considered email records placed on record, which showed that YouTube support staff had confirmed to Prof Singh that he was being billed correctly at Rs129 inclusive of GST. They advised him to contact VI to resolve the issue of excess billing.
After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Commission found that the complainant’s case had substantial merit. It held that VI had not been able to justify the additional charge of Rs54 per month, particularly when Google itself had confirmed that the subscription fee was fixed at Rs129 including GST. The Commission also noted that VI had failed to respond to multiple letters and requests from Prof Singh seeking clarification, thereby violating the consumer’s “right to be informed” guaranteed under Section 2(9)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The imposition of a flat Rs100 penalty for late payment of a Rs500 bill was also criticised as arbitrary and excessive, amounting to an unfair trade practice.
While rejecting the Prof Singh’s prayer to direct Google to establish a bank account and customer service operations in India on the ground that such relief was beyond its jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission held VI solely liable for the excess charges and for failing to safeguard consumer rights. It ordered the company to refund a total of Rs378, representing the excess charges of Rs54 per month between June 2022 and December 2022, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the complaint until realisation. The company was also directed to refund Rs100 levied as an unreasonable late payment fee with the same rate of interest. Additionally, VI has been ordered to pay Rs5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission has given the company 45 days to comply with the order. Google Ireland Limited was exonerated from liability, with the Commission noting that no excess amount had been charged at its end. The ruling underscores the obligation of telecom operators and intermediaries to maintain transparency in billing practices and to respond promptly to consumer grievances.
