Poor network disrupts online classes; service provider ordered to pay Rs 14,000 to student

Of the total amount, the company must pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 4,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on October 7 by a bench comprising commission president Rakesh Pandey and member Churaman Das.

The complainant, a student and long-time customer of the service provider, said he had faced weak network coverage, slow internet speeds, distorted calls and frequent signal disruptions since September 2023. He told the commission that the problems affected his online classes, downloading of study material and preparation for competitive examinations.

He first emailed the company’s appellate authority on September 21, 2023. The company acknowledged the connectivity issue the next day but reportedly said it could take about six months to resolve.

The student alleged that the problem continued despite several follow-up complaints. In October 2025, the company told him that optimal coverage was available and promised improvements within 10 days. After another complaint in January, it acknowledged limited coverage, but the issue allegedly remained unresolved.

Company’s defence

Indian Express report added that the company argued that network coverage depends on technical and geographical factors, including the distance between a customer’s home and the nearest tower. It said it had taken steps to optimise its network and maintained that the complainant was free to shift to another service provider if he was dissatisfied.

The commission, however, found that the company had itself acknowledged both connectivity problems and limited coverage. It held that advising the customer to port his number, rather than fixing the persistent issue, pointed to a deficiency in service.

What the commission said

“Although the company has made some efforts to address the issue, it has also stated that if the complainant is not getting adequate network coverage on its SIM card, he should port his SIM to another company’s network,” the commission observed. “This prima facie indicates a deficiency in the service provided by the opposite party, as instead of resolving the issue, it advised the complainant to switch to another mobile network provider.”

The bench relied on documentary evidence submitted by the student, including complaints, network speed tests and screenshots showing online classes failing to run properly. It concluded that the evidence supported his claim of poor connectivity.

The ruling makes clear that a telecom operator cannot treat a customer’s request to switch operators as a substitute for providing reliable service. Where a company acknowledges a coverage problem but leaves it unresolved despite repeated complaints, it can be held liable for deficiency in service under consumer law.