A resident of Uralsk recovered 40,000 tenge from Beeline (KaR-Tel LLP) as compensation for moral damages due to an improper response to a request for itemised incoming call records. In addition, the company had previously been fined for a repeat violation of consumer protection legislation.
HOW THE DISPUTE WITH THE OPERATOR AROSE
According to Hronika.kz, a resident of Uralsk, Ruslan S., went to court after he did not receive the requested itemisation of incoming calls from the mobile operator.
According to the claimant, debt collectors from Delta M Kazakhstan Collection Agency LLP called him more often than permitted. In order to obtain evidence for court proceedings against the collection agency, the man sent an application to KaR-Tel requesting information about incoming calls for a certain period.
However, he received no response to his request. As Ruslan S. explained, due to the lack of necessary evidence, he had to abandon his claims in the case against the debt collectors. After that, the man sent a pre-trial claim to the operator, pointing out a violation of his rights as a consumer.
HOW BEELINE RESPONDED
According to the claimant, the company's response came almost six months after the initial request, already after his complaint to the Department of Trade and Consumer Protection for the city of Astana.
Moreover, instead of the requested information about incoming calls, the operator provided a table with outgoing calls. The company also stated that it had not received the client's previous requests. However, according to the man, data from Kazpost JSC and the E-Otinish system confirmed delivery of the letters.
The operator's representative in court stated that the absence of information about incoming calls was explained by the absence of corresponding records in the billing system. The company's response, in his words, was incomplete only from the claimant's subjective point of view.
WHY THE OPERATOR WAS FINED
After a repeat complaint, the Department of Trade and Consumer Protection reported that KaR-Tel LLP had been held administratively liable under Part 6 of Article 190 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Violation of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on consumer protection").
This concerns a repeat violation within a year after a previously imposed penalty under the same article. The prescribed fine ranges from 20 to 50 monthly calculation indices (MCI).
WHY THE COURT AWARDED 40,000 TENGE
Ruslan S. sought 400,000 tenge in compensation for moral damages. The head of the Department of Trade and Consumer Protection for the West Kazakhstan Region (WKR), Elmira Kimatova, who participated in the proceedings as a third party, supported the claim. She stated that the failure to provide a response to the claim violated the consumer's right to receive information.
Court No. 2 of the city of Uralsk partially granted the claims and ordered Beeline to pay 40,000 tenge — ten times less than the amount claimed.
The court did not accept the operator's argument about the absence of records of incoming calls in the billing system as grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims. The judgment states that a subscriber has the right to demand proper quality of telecommunications services, including receiving itemisation of incoming calls for certain periods.
The court's decision has entered into legal force.
CONTEXT
In January 2025, the Agency for the Protection and Development of Competition (AZRK) investigated the justification for Beeline's tariff increases for wired internet. The operator's actions in changing the cost of services came under scrutiny.
In August 2026, Kazakhstani citizens complained about problems with Beeline's communications and mobile internet. Telecommunications expert Igor Lastovkin also drew attention to problems in the operator's performance.
In October 2026, Beeline, Kcell and Tele2 were fined for exceeding the permissible radio signal level on the territory of three penal system institutions in the Kostanay Region.
