The complainant, Munish Kumar, a resident of Longowal village, Singrur, was a prepaid subscriber of Airtel mobile. He planned a trip to Vaishno Devi in December 2006 and made all the necessary arrangements.

To confirm that roaming facility is available in Jammu and Kashmir, Munish contacted the customer care where he was advised to send a message to 121 to enquire about the roaming rates in Jammu and Kashmir. The complainant received a reply that his roaming facility has been activated.

After reaching Jammu, he found that the mobile phone was not working. Munish alleged that he and his family suffered a lot as they could not contact the hotel authorities that were to send a car for receiving them. They had to wait at the railway station for over two hours and also missed the helicopter, which forced them to go to the shrine on foot.

Alleging mental and physical harassment at the hands of the mobile company, Munish moved the district consumer forum in Singrur.

In its reply, Airtel denied the allegations and ruled out any deficiency on their part. The company said they had activated the roaming facility and as per the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunication, roaming facility is unavailable in Jammu and Kashmir.

The forum ruled that it was the duty of the telecom company to inform the respondent about the non- availability of roaming facility when asked.

The forum then directed Airtel to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 as compensation for the loss suffered by him.

This order by the district forum was challenged before the State Commission, which on Friday upheld the decision.