Telephone Services Consumerism

1
Consumer Protection Digest

on
Telephone Services
Ad interim order - No power of passing ad interim orders have been given to the Redressal Agencies under the
Act - 1993 CPC 26 Pb
Additional remedy - Remed! under CP Act is an additional remed! and not in derogation of an! other
provisions of law - 2""3#2$ CPC %39 &erala 'C
--Complaint against (elephone )epartment for negligence is maintainable * Remed! under CP Act is an additional
remed! as envisaged in + 3 of the Act *199,#2$ CPC 299 Pb
Addressee - Complaint regarding dela!ed telegram can be filed b! sender and not b! addressee of telegram *
1999#2$ CPC 3-1 (N
Adjournment - Ad.ournment should be granted onl! in e/ceptional cases b! Consumer 0orums as .ustice
dela!ed is .ustice demised - 199,#1$ CPC 1,, Pb
Advice note for telephone - )ela! of 11 months in giving telephone connection after issuance of advice note
* )epartment directed to pa! Rs %1""" as compensation for dela! - 2"""#2$ CPC 616 Chd
Advocates Certificate - Complainant registered as an advocate with 2ar Council * )emand of cop! of 332
degree .ust to dela! release of telephone connection amounts to deficienc! in service - 1994#2$ CPC %,% Pb
Advocates Fault - (he plea that litigant should not suffer for non appearance of advocate is no ground for
restoration of petition * Relief against advocate can be separatel! sought - 2""3#1$ CPC 1 NC
Affidavit - An affidavit being a part of complaint and evidence * Relief on the basis of affidavit cannot be
declined * 1999#2$ CPC 6,- Pb
Amendment * An amendment can be allowed for effective ad.udication of the dispute if it does not alter the
character of the case * 5uestion of maintainabilit! of complaint is no bar to amendment * 2"""#2$ CPC 23- &er
Apology - Petitioner tendered un6ualified apolog! and had thrown himself at the merc! of Court * Apolog!
tendered1 accepted with a warning - 1992 CPC 31 Pb
Appeal * Appeal if not maintainable u7s 1% can be treated as a revision for ad.udication u7s 1, #b$ of CP Act *
2""1#2$ CPC --1 Chd
--An appeal not accompanied b! certified cop! of impugned order is not entertainable under Rule 22 #3$ of 'P
Consumer Rules - 1994#1$ CPC %42 'P
Approval of Department - Approval of department for using telephone for relatives and guests is not
necessar! * 2""6#1$ CPC 36% NC
Arbitration - An award of Arbitrator about telephone bill under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act is not sub.ect to
challenge before Consumer 0orum - 1994#2$ CPC %21 Pb
8Complaint running into 3%" pages with a claim of huge amount about 2- lacs rupees * 9atter referred for
arbitration * 2""3#2$ CPC 2,4 NC
8Consumer Act is no bar against the provisions of Arbitration clause provided in +ection , of the (elegraph Act *
(hough this opinion is not final - 1991 CPC 31 NC
8Appeal against an award given b! Arbitrator under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act is not maintainable under CP
Act - 199,#1$ CPC --- NC
8:/cessive telephone bill due to the misuse of telephone b! staff * 9atter cannot be referred for arbitration as there
was no defect in meter or line - 1994#1$ CPC 23- Pb
8;t is not mandator! that a telephone matter should alwa!s be referred for arbitration under +ection ,*2 of the
(elegraph Act - 199-#2$ CPC 361 <2engal
89atter cannot be referred for arbitration when matter relates to misuse of telephone * =nl! a matter relating to
defect in line can be referred * 1994#2$ CPC 33% Pb
89atter referred for arbitration under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act * (elephone cannot be disconnected for non*
pa!ment of disputed bill till the final decision of Arbitrator - 1994#2$ CPC -9" Pb
2
8+udden spurt in telephone bill * Reduction in bill allowed * 9atter need not be referred to Arbitrator * 1999#1$
CPC 2," 'P
--<hen there is dispute regarding enhanced telephone bill1 it is better to refer the matter for arbitration under
+ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act - 2""1#2$ CPC 1-" Chd
8<hen there is misuser of telephone b! emplo!ees causing inflated bill due to spurt in calls1 matter cannot be
referred for arbitration under +ection , #2$ of (elegraph Act > 1994#2$ CPC 1-% Pb
Arbitration clause > Arbitration clause of +ec ,2 of the (elegraph Act1 144% is not applicable to mobile
service > +ervice comes within purview of consumer * 2"1"#3$ CPC 1,3 ?P
Arbitrator - )ispute regarding telephone bill * )etermination of bill on average basis not proper matter should
be referred to Arbitrator *2""1#1$ CPC 66, Chd
**Non furnishing of details of telephone bill > Proper remed! is to refer the matter for arbitration * 2"1"#3$ CPC 112
<2
8No instrument with )istrict 0orum to determine e/cessive bill * Case referred to Arbitrator under +ection ,*2 of
the (elegraph Act - 2""3#2$ CPC 64" 'r
Aard * Award on telephone bill became final * Relief denied to complainant in view of the award given b! the
Arbitrator * 199%#2$ CPC 133 'r
!eneficiary * A son being beneficiar! of telephone in the name of his deceased father is a consumer under the
Act * 1994#2$ CPC -96 Pb
8An emplo!ee of ;nsurance Compan! availing telephone connection standing in name of compan! is a beneficiar!
of telephone * 'eld entitled to file a complaint * 2"""#2$ CPC 32" Pondicherr!
--)efect in (elephone of wife * 'usband1 being a beneficiar! is competent to file a complaint * 2"""#1$ CPC 142
Pb
80ather is a beneficiar! to telephone installed in the name of his son * 2"""#2$ CPC 92 Pb
!ill delivery * )ut! to pa! telephone bills lies on subscribers * )epartment not liable for non deliver! of bills *
2""1#1$ CPC %23 )elhi
!ona fide mista"e * 2ona fide mista@e can occur onl! once and not twice for wrongful disconnection of a
telephone * Negligence proved in the case * 2"""#2$ CPC 29" )elhi
!ro"en meter - (elephone department not in6uiring about bro@en meter and giving inflated bill * 'eld liable
for deficienc! in service * 2""2#2$ CPC 11 ?P
!urden * 2urden to prove that fault in phone was due to heav! rain1 lies on )epartment * T.U. Mehta v
Ahmedabad Telecom District, 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
Commercial purpose * A person purchasing goods for commercial purpose1 is not a consumer under the Act *
1992 CPC 61% 'r
8A commercial fa/ centre connected with +()7PC= * Complainant cannot held as a consumer as purpose of fa/
machine is for commercial use * 2"""#2$ CPC 31, Pondicherr!
8A mobile phone purchased not with a purpose to generate profit cannot be said to be purchase for commercial
purpose * Hari Chand v Reliance India Mobile Ltd., 2""%#2$ CPC 249 Chd
**PC= * Respondent running a PC= deposited securit! > CC2 remained defective for two months >
0ranchisee could not be considered as consumer under C P Act > =rder of )istrict 0orum dismissing the
complaint upheld > 2"11#1$ CPC 3"4 NC
Common appeal * Common appeal against the .udgment delivered in two cases is not maintainable * 2""2#1$
CPC 64" ?P
Compensation * A whimsical compensation of Rs 21""1""" cannot be allowed to be paid * 1991 CPC %94 (N
--A lip service is no substitute for an actual compensation * 1993 CPC %,, 'P
8Awarding a marginal relief of Rs 3"" in a telephone disconnection case held to be a cruel .o@e with the subscriber
* Compensation enhanced to Rs 31""" * 199-#1$ CPC 6%, 'r
--Compensation awarded b! 0ora should not be e/cessive in the facts of the case * 199,#2$ CPC 1, (N
8Compensation is not a bount! or premium to complainant which should be granted @eeping into view the actual
loss * 199,#1$ CPC 1,, Pb
8Compensation of Rs 21%"" raised to Rs 1"1""" when telephone remained non*functional for 2- da!s * 2""%#1$
CPC 16- )elhi
3
8Compensation of Rs 6""" awarded b! )istrict 0orum against (elephone )epartment * :nhancement in
compensation without reasons cannot be allowed * 2""1#2$ CPC ,% Chd
8Compensation pa!able to subscriber due to fault of emplo!ees should be recovered from them * 199,#2$ CPC 299
Pb
8Compensation should based upon actual loss * +peculative and imaginar! compensation not permissible * 1999#2$
CPC -3- Pb
8Compensation should be awarded reasonabl! and not on higher side * 199,#2$ CPC 1% &er
8Compensation should be based on actual loss and not on remote cause of loss * 1994#2$ CPC 143 Pb
8Compensation should be granted on the basis of actual loss and not as a matter of generosit! * 2""3#2$ CPC 6,2
Chd
8Complainant beneficiar! allowed Rs %1""" b! )istrict 0orum for defect in telephone * ;mpugned order held to be
.ustified * 2"""#2$ CPC 32" Pondicherr!
**Complainant re6uested to stop )N) #)o not disturb$ calls to service provider violating Rules and Regulations >
=P directed to pa! compensation of Rs 1"1"""7* with cost of Rs 21""" * 2""9#2$ CPC 6,6 9aha
8Complainant suffered due to inflated bill and rude behaviour of telephone staff * :ntitled to be compensated *
1992 CPC 26" BC&
--Complainant suffered loss due to non*release of telephone connection * )emand of Rs 231""" as compensation
un.ust * 9oderate amount of Rs 2%"" awarded * 2""3#1$ CPC 2-, Chd
8ComplainantDs telephone Number not shown in director! * Non rectification without dela! amounts to deficienc!
in service * Rs 1%1""" awarded as compensation to complainant * 2"""#1$ CPC -2- AP
--ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for most of the time * )efect not removed despite repeated re6uests *
Complainant entitled to Rs %"1""" as compensation * 2""1#2$ CPC 19- ?P
8ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for most of the time * +everal complaints did not wor@ * )epartment
directed to pa! Rs %%"" as compensation * 2"""#1$ CPC %1, Pb
8ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order at his residence and business place * Compensation of Rs 1 lac
being on higher side reduced to Rs 1%"" onl! * 2""3#1$ CPC 3" NC
8Connection of telephone was not restored despite pa!ment made according to award of arbitrator * =P )irector!
to pa! compensation and cost of Rs 121%"" * 2""6#2$ CPC 224 NC
8Connection wrongfull! denied to complainant7 Advocate having 9 !ears standing practice * Plea of non feasibilit!
not proved * =P directed to give connection with cost of Rs 1"1""" * 2""3#1$ CPC 1%% Pb
8)efect not removed despite repeated complaints * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 2%1""" as compensation and to
provide telephone instrument of good standard * 2""3#1$ CPC 1,2 Pb
8)ela! of 4 months in giving telephone connection to complainant1 Advocate without reasons * )epartment
directed to pa! a sum of Rs 41""" as compensation and cost * 2""1#2$ CPC 329 Chd
8)ela! of 4 !ears in giving telephone connection * Complainant awarded Rs %,%" as compensation and cost *
2""3#2$ CPC 66" ?ttran
8)ela! of one !ear in telephone connection which was to be released within , da!s as per instructions * =P
directed to give connection with compensation7cost of Rs 1"1""" * 2""3#1$ CPC 6-% Chd
8)ela! of si/ months in installation of telephone under =E( +cheme * )epartment directed to pa! a sum of Rs
2%1""" as compensation * 2"""#2$ CPC 26% Chd
8)epartment cannot escape its dut! to remove telephone defect on the plea that fault was caused b! lightening *
Complainant allowed Rs 1%"" as compensation * 2"""#2$ CPC 329 &er
8)espite pa!ment of all dues complaint could not avail facilities of ;+) on mobile phone * =pposite part! directed
to pa! Rs =ne la@h as compensation and restore ;+) and +() to complainant*Bournalist * 1999#2$ CPC 2-- Chd
8)isconnection of telephone despite pa!ment of bill * )epartment liable for deficienc! in service * 2ut
compensation reduced from %""" to 1""" onl! * 2""2#1$ CPC -11 'r
8)isconnection of (elephone not directl! connected with the huge compensation awarded to complainant *
Amount of compensation reduced from Rs 2"1""" to Rs 6""" onl! * 1993 CPC 96 NC
8)isconnection of (elephone without .ustification causing loss to ;ncome (a/ Practioner * )epartment to pa! Rs
121""" as compensation7cost * 2""1#2$ CPC 96 Chd
80our telephones of business premises of complainant remained non*functional for , da!s * Award of Rs ,1""" to
complainant not on the higher side * 1994#2$ CPC --1 Pb
--0re6uent brea@ down in the telephone services * Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs 111""" for
suffering loss due to negligence of )epartment * 2"""#1$ CPC 6-" Aoa
-
8'uge compensation for ordinar! deficienc! of service cannot be accepted * Complaint returned to complainant *
2""1#1$ CPC 2-9 (N
--;ndustrialist subscriber was deprived of telephone facilit! for one !ear * Compensation of Rs 2"1""" awarded to
complainant .ustified * 199,#2$ CPC -%4 Pb
8New telephone connection dela!ed without valid e/cuse * +eniorit! list violated * )epartment directed to pa! Rs
3""" with interest * 2""1#1$ CPC 364 (N
8No attention paid to complainant regarding non functioning of telephone * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 31"""
as compensation to complainant * 2"""#1$ CPC -26 (N
**Non*shifting of telephone despite repeated re6uests caused a loss and harassment to the complainant7Advocate >
=P directed to shift telephone with compensation and cost of Rs 1,1""" > 2""9#2$ CPC 2%4 Aoa
8=P supplied mobile with defective sim card * )irected to refund amount with compensation1 cost and interest *
2""%#1$ CPC 261 Chd
8=P failed to construct tower according to agreed terms * Cell phone became useless * =P directed to pa!
compensation of Rs 3"1""" * 2""6#2$ CPC 61- NC
**=P gave misleading advertisements for promotion of sale of reliance mobiles > 0ree gift of mobile
denied on purchase of re6uisite goods b! the complainant > =Ps directed to pa! an amount of Rs %"1"""7* as
compensation > 2"11#1$ CPC 3,2 NC
**=P received Rs 19%7* for recharging of mobile but did not recharge the same nor mone! was refunded >
=P directed to refund the amount alongwith compensation7cost of Rs 21""" > 2"1"#1$ CPC 36" Chd
8Pa!ment of bill paid within reasonable time * )isconnection without verif!ing pa!ment of bill is illegal *
)epartment directed to pa! compensation * 2""-#1$ CPC 23" AP
8Redressal 0orums cannot give direction to the (elecom )epartment to provide trouble free service to the
subscribers * 1991 CPC 61% NC
8Reduction in compensation due to negligence of (elephone )epartment1 b! +tate Commission * Not correct when
order of )istrict 0orum is .ust and proper * 2""3#1$ CPC 11- NC
8+ervice remained out of order for 293 da!s in the !ear * =pposite part!7appellant rightl! directed to refund rental
charges for non functional period with Rs 121%"" as compensation * 2""2#1$ CPC %63 NC
8(elephone of complainant law!er remained non*functional for 1" da!s * Compensation of Rs 1"1""" allowed *
2""%#1$ CPC 42 )elhi
8(elephone of complainant1 Advocate1 remained dead for about 2" da!s * Compensation of Rs 11%"" for
deficienc! in service held to be moderate * 2""1#2$ CPC 223 =rissa
8(elephone of Retired Chief Bustice*complainant remained dead for 16 da!s * )epartment directed to pa! Rs
2%1""" with 12F interest * 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
--(elephone remained dead for about 21 da!s within a month * )epartment directed to pa! a total sum of Rs 3%""
as compensation * 2"""#1$ CPC %14 Pb
8(elephones of advocate complainant disconnected for not pa!ing inflated bill * =P directed to pa! total
compensation of Rs %"1""" * 2""4#2$ CPC %%- B C &
--?ndue dela! in installation of telephone applied under ++ categor! * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 1"1""" with
12F interest as compensation * 2"""#2$ CPC 169 Chd
Compensation liability * :/cessive bill issued after +() was disconnected * 9isuse of phone b!
emplo!ees * Amount of bill should be recovered from erring emplo!ees1 not from subscriber * 1994#1$ CPC 36% Pb
Compensation#costs * ?ndue dela! of 2 !ears in giving telephone connection without reason =P directed to
pa! compensation and costs of 2""" to complaint * 2""2#1$ CPC 23- Pb
Complainant * Complaint can be filed b! a consumer organisation onl! for the benefit of its members and not
for general public * 199%#2$ CPC 3,9 <2engal
8A telephone complaint filed as a representative of another subscriber1 without authorit! is not maintainable *
1994#1$ CPC %-2 Pb
8A telephone1 as per instruction of )epartment is for the use of subscriber and his famil! member * Complaint can
be filed b! a close relative of subscriber * 2"""#1$ CPC 142 Pb
--Complaint b! Goluntar! Consumer Association on behalf of beneficiar! is maintainable * 2""6#1$ CPC 36% NC
8Non decision on complaint filed about e/cessive bill * (elephone department is guilt! of deficient service *
1994#1$ CPC 1,3 Pb
%
8Complaint regarding dela!ed telegram can be filed b! sender and not b! addressee of telegram * 1999#2$ CPC 3-1
(N
Complaint * A common complaint b! 19 persons regarding violation of list for telephone connection held not
legall! maintainable * 2""1#2$ CPC 166 Chd
Complaint by father - Complaint b! father 6ua fault in telephone owned b! his son is maintainable under
CP Act *2"""#2$ CPC 92 Pb
Complaint by seller - Complaint b! seller for non*pa!ment of sale price does not lie under CP Act as he is
not a consumer * 199%#2$ CPC %34 &ar
Complicated matter - Complaint running into 3%" pages with a claim of huge amount about 2- lacs rupees *
9atter referred for arbitration * 2""3#2$ CPC 2,4 NC
Consumer * A commercial fa/ centre connected with +()7PC= * Complainant cannot held as a consumer as
purpose of fa/ machine is for commercial use * 2"""#2$ CPC 31, Pondicherr!
8A complainant see@ing telephone connection falls under the definition of a Consumer * 1992 CPC -2" 'r
8A franchise holder running a PC=7+() is not a consumer * Complaint against e/cessive billing not maintainable *
2""6#2$ CPC 3%% 'r
8Applicant paid necessar! amount to get Cellphone service which was dela!ed * Applicant is not a mere
prospective applicant * =nl! service is deferred * Applicant is a consumer * 1999#1$ CPC -61 Pb
8A telephone subscriber is a consumer under the Consumer Act * 1991 CPC 31 NC
8An applicant having made deposits for telephone connection is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act *
199%#1$ CPC ,6 (N
8Complaint * Approval of original consumer in writing not necessar! for filing a complaint under the Act * 1991
CPC -,4 'r
8'older of PC=7+() does not come under the definition of a consumer * 2""6#1$ CPC 19- Pb
Consumer dispute * Arbitration clause of +ec ,2 of the (elegraph Act1 144% is not applicable to mobile
service > +ervice comes within purview of consumer * 2"1"#3$ CPC 1,3 ?P
**Provisions of section ,*2 of the (elegraph Act are not applicable to mobile service provided b! private operators >
9obile services are covered under consumer dispute under CP Act * 2"1"#3$ CPC 1%2 Pb
Consumer $elfare - Consumer Act being later in time and enacted for welfare of Consumer has overriding
effect on other enactments * 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
Consumer#beneficiary - =ne of a telephone subscribers being a beneficiar! is competent to file a complaint *
2""1#2$ CPC 293 2ihar
Consumer#licencee - A PC= holder is a licencee of (elephone )epartment * Complaint regarding defective
apparatus not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act * 1994#1$ CPC --" 'r
8;t is settled that a PC= holder is a mere licensee * )oes not come under the definition of a consumer * Relief for
refusal of connection declined * 1994#1$ CPC 6-6 Pb
Consumer#subscriber - ;t is wrong to sa! that a subscriber does not remain a consumer after disconnection
of his telephone * 1994#1$ CPC 3%2 'r
Consumers duty - (elephone disconnection for non pa!ment of bill * )epartment not at fault due to alleged
non issuance of bill * ;t is the dut! of consumer to in6uire about reason for non issuance of bill * 2""4#1$ CPC 63% Pb
Cordless telephone - =pposite part! not supplied the item though Rs 31%%" were deposited * Complainant
entitled to refund of amount onl! * 199,#1$ CPC 6" =rissa
Counsels mista"e - A client should not suffer on account of his counselDs mista@e * 199,#1$ CPC 224 Chd
Criminal jurisdiction - Complainant pleaded point of per.ur! against =P in addition to defect in telephone *
Consumer .urisdiction not barred * Case u7ss 19% and 3-" CrPC can also be tried under CP Act * 2""3#1$ CPC 1-3 Pb
Damage by %ightening - (elephone damaged b! lightening was repaired after one month and 1" da!s after
sanction of higher authorities * )epartment not liable for deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC %-2 Pb
Defaulting &fficials - Compensation awarded for illegal disconnection of telephone should be recovered from
defaulting officials * 1996#2$ CPC 2"6 NC
Deferred service - Applicant paid necessar! amount to get Cellphone service which was dela!ed * Applicant is
not a mere prospective applicant * =nl! service is deferred * Applicant is a consumer * 1999#1$ CPC -61 Pb
6
Deficiency in Service - ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order at his residence and business place *
Compensation of Rs 1 lac being on higher side reduced to Rs 1%"" onl! - 2""3#1$ CPC 3" NC
provide telephone instrument of good standard - 2""3#1$ CPC 1,2 Pb
8)isconnection of outgoing calls facilit! of mobile due to outstanding arrears * =P not liable for deficienc! in
service * Kim Sinha v. harati Cell!lar Limited, 2""-#2$ CPC 3-, )elhi
8)isconnection of private phone for non pa!ment of bill of )epartmental phone of complainant illegal * )eficienc!
in service proved * (elephone ordered to be restored - 2""3#1$ CPC -46 Chd
8;nordinate dela! of % da!s in deliver! of urgent telegram * =pposite Part! held liable for deficienc! in service *
2""-#2$ CPC 269 (N
8(elephone * Appellant1 a medical practitioner suffered loss due to absence of telephone amenit!1 due to
negligence of )epartment * :ntitled to enhanced compensation -1992 CPC 61% 'r
**;t was not possible to release connection at earl! stage as stated b! letter written b! B(= #A$ > )ela! does not
amount to a deficienc! in service > 2""9#1$ CPC %-1 Pb
Delay Condonation - No sufficient reason given for dela! of 23 da!s * Appeal dismissed as time barred -
2""-#1$ CPC 619 Pb
80or condonation of dela! sufficient reasons should be bona fide * )ela! in absence of sufficient reasons cannot be
condoned * 2"""#2$ CPC 266 )elhi
Delay in Connection - )ela! of 6 months in release of telephone connection after sanction is a deficient
service * Chie" 1999#1$ CPC 161 Pb
Delay in 'emoval of Defect - )ela! of 1" da!s in removal of defect * 0ault due to underground wire not
proved * )ela! amounts to deficienc! in service * 1994#2$ CPC 143 Pb
Delayed (ustice - Ad.ournment should be granted onl! in e/ceptional cases b! Consumer 0orums as .ustice
dela!ed is .ustice denied - 199,#1$ CPC 1,, Pb
Delayed Telegram - )ela! of 1, da!s in deliver! of (elegram * )epartment held liable to compensate the
complainant * 1991 CPC -6 #&arnata@a$
Departmental )nstructions - <hen there is sudden spurt and e/cessive billing telephone authorities must
ta@e action in accordance with guidelines of )epartmental ;nstruction dt 9-1946 to remove the defect * 2""2#1$ CPC
-%% Pb
--No attention was paid to complaint filed with department relating to e/cessive telephone bill * )epartment held
liable for violating telephone department instructions - 2""2#1$ CPC %49 ?P
**Conditions printed on telegram from e/onerating department for an! loss1 is no bar to claim compensation b! the
complainant - 1991 CPC -99 (N
Determination - )etermination of telephone bill on the basis of average of preceding calls1 is not permissible *
199%#2$ CPC 22 Ra.
Directions - )irections for sending telephone bills through registered posts cannot be given under +ection 1- of
the Act * 1993 CPC -%% NC
8)irections issued in the form of threatening is not proper u7s 1- * Compliance of order is alread! contemplated
under +ections 2% and 2, of the Act * 1999#1$ CPC 161 Pb
8No directions about fi/ation of bus fare can be issued to Aovernment under Consumer Protection Act * 1994#2$
CPC 349 Pb
Disconnection of Telephone - )isconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of e/cessive bill1 without
in6uir! is not legall! valid - 1994#1$ CPC 1,3 Pb
8(elephone )eptt held liable to compensate for illegal disconnection of complainantDs telephone - 199%#2$ CPC
%39 <2engal
8(elephone disconnected due to non*pa!ment of inflated bill * =rder of )istrict 0orum regarding restoration of
connection is .ustified * 1994#2$ CPC 32 'r
**Connection of a telephone or (ele/ cannot be disconnected without a prior notice of seven da!s to the subscriber *
1991 CPC 36" 'r
8)isconnection of telephone for default in pa!ment of bill b! other subscribers is illegal * 2""%#1$ CPC -9, )elhi
Dishonest Consumer - Complainant paid illegal gratification to get telephone connection * A dishonest
consumer not entitled to compensation - 2""3#1$ CPC %,4 Au.
,
Dismissal in Default - Restoration * Non appearance of petitioner or his advocate despite service through
registered post * Restoration of petition disallowed - 2""3#1$ CPC 1 NC
8(here is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act for restoration of a cause dismissed in default - 199-#1$
CPC 1-" NC
Dynamic %oc"ing Code - Complainant himself at fault for not using the d!namic loc@ing Code * Relief for
e/cessive bill declined -2""2#1$ CPC 31 Chd
*mployees 'esponsibility - (elephone )epartment not appearing before the Commission * :rring
emplo!ee held personall! liable to pa! cost of Rs 31""" - 199-#2$ CPC -14 NC
*nhancement of Compensation - Complainant suffered huge loss due to illegal disconnection of
telephone * Compensation enhanced from Rs %1""" to Rs 1"1""" - 199,#1$ CPC 1,, Pb
*n+uiry - :n6uir! started against official in compliance of order of )istrict 0orum * Noncompletion of en6uir!
does not amount to non*compliance of order - 2"""#1$ CPC 1"" Pb
*vidence - (elephone )epartment being in possession of metering e6uipment is bound to prove that e6uipment is
not defective - 1996#2$ CPC 9, NC
*,cessive !ill - (elephone bill showing calls running into hours which is impracticable * 2ill of Rs 11131"92
reduced to Rs 1919,, onl! * 199,#1$ CPC 219 Chd
**:/cessive bill issued to the complainant > 2ill prepared without adopting proper procedure > 2ill 6uashed b! 0ora
below > =rders upheld > 2"1"#1$ CPC 126 NC
--Complainant without proving metering defect cannot claim reduction in telephone bill - 1996#2$ CPC 26- NC
8)epartment must follow official instructions and hold proper investigation in cases of e/cessive bills * 2"""#1$
CPC 144 Chd
8)epartment not producing relevant record to rebut allegation of e/cessive bill * Complainant held entitled to %"F
rebate in the bill *1999#2$ CPC %%4 Chd
8)isconnection for non*pa!ment for telephone bill1 without notice is valid onl! when the bill is not e/cessive *
1994#1$ CPC 6%6 Pb
8:/cessive bill issued to complainant * +pecific allegations of fault in meter and mischief b! emplo!ees alleged *
=rder directing refund of e/cess amount .ustified * 2"""#2$ CPC 3-9 Chd
8+udden spurt in metered calls * :/cessive billing from Rs 2%" to 2%1""" 2urden lies on )epartment to prove that
e6uipment is not defective * )irected to issue fresh bill on average basis - 2"""#1$ CPC -24 &er
--+udden spurt in calls * No investigation in cause of spurt held * ;nflated bill issued on basis of such calls not
sustainable * 2""-#2$ CPC 13- Pb
8(elephone Rules * Provisions of (elegraph Rule --3 cannot be invo@ed when complaint has been filed under CP
Act - 199%#2$ CPC %39 <2engal
--A bill of Rs 114,4 for local calls from telephone of a +enior law!er with several .uniors and famil! members
cannot be said to be e/cessive * 2ill on average basis declined * 1999#1$ CPC 6"4 Chd
8(elephone department admitting the telephone bill to be e/cessive * 'eld liable to pa! Rs 6""" for deficienc! in
service - 2"""#1$ CPC 34- Pb
8+udden rise in telephone bills without reason * Reduction in bill allowed - 2""2#2$ CPC 3%" Chd
*,ecution - )istrict 0orum dul! e/ecuted order of +tate Commission * No new point can be raised be!ond
original order * 2""1#2$ CPC --1 Chd
*,emplary Compensation - +tatus of a part! is not relevant in awarding an e/emplar! compensation to a
part! b! the Consumer 0orums * 1993 CPC 694 NC
False affidavit - =P made a general statement through affidavit den!ing allegation of complainant * Prosecution
of =P without initiation b! court not warranted - 2""3#1$ CPC 6-% Chd
Father#son - +onDs telephone cannot be disconnected for recover! of fatherDs telephone bill * 2""-#1$ CPC %"%
?ttranchal
Fa, machine - A commercial fa/ centre connected with +()7PC= * Complainant cannot held as a consumer as
purpose of fa/ machine is for commercial use - 2"""#2$ CPC 31, Pondicherr!
Forgery - 0orger! alleged in misusing telephone of Complainant b! her son * Remed! lies before Civil Court *
Lala 199,#1$ CPC 6%4 NC
4
Fraud#Cheating - Point of fraud1 cheating and forger! raised in complaint * Proper 0orum for relief in a Civil
Court and not Consumer 0orum - 2""-#1$ CPC ,4 Chd
Freedom fighter - ?ndue dela! in giving connection to a freedom*fighter * Connection to be released with
compensation of Rs 11""" with 12F interest - 1994#2$ CPC 29" 'r
Frivolous complaint - Complaint found to be frivolous resulting in the harassment of telephone authorities *
)ismissed with costs of Rs %"" - 1991 CPC 1-2 )elhi
-uidelines - +udden spurt in meter reading * No fortnightl! notice under guidelines issued * )epartmentDs
negligence proved - 1999#1$ CPC 129 'P
.arassment * (elecom )epartment should chec@ its =fficials so that consumer ma! not be harassed due to their
rude behaviour * 1992 CPC 26" BC&
.eavy compensation * Awarding of heav! compensation of Rs 11%"1""" in telephone disconnection case
held to be un.ust * 199-#2$ CPC %4, NC
.otel * Commercial purpose * Complaint regarding communication s!stem installed in 'otel * Complainant not a
consumer * 1992 CPC ,6% Chd
.usband#ife * (elephone of wife cannot be disconnected for non pa!ment of bill b! her husband relating to
his separate telephone * 2"""#2$ CPC 62 Pb
)/S/D/ facilities - ;+) facilities not provided to complainant1 a Bournalist of ;nternational level * Compan!
directed to pa! Rs 1 la@h and restore facilities of ;+) and +() - 1999#2$ CPC 2-- Chd
)/S/D/#S/T/D/ connection - A subscriber having +() onl! cannot be made to pa! for ;+) bill *
)isconnection for non pa!ment of bill constitutes a deficienc! in service - 1999#2$ CPC ,6 Pb
)llegal disconnection - )efault in pa!ment b! husband in his own bill * )isconnection of telephone of wife is
illegal * Amounts to deficient service - 1999#2$ CPC 329 9P
)mpleadment - Complaint against wrong disconnection of telephone b! 2+N3 * Post office is not necessar!
part! * 2""-#2$ CPC 316 < 2engal
)mpracticable calls - (elephone bill showing calls running into house which is impracticable * 2ill of Rs
11131"92 reduced to Rs 1919,, onl! - 199,#1$ CPC 219 Chd
)nflated bill - Complainant having +() facilit! * 9eter wor@ing properl! * (elephone bill cannot be said to be
inflated - 2""1#1$ CPC %-1 ?P
89anaging )irector of 2an@ having vast business en.o!ing +()7;+) facilities * Plea of inflated bill not
acceptable - 1999#2$ CPC 2" Chd
8No allegation of misuser or tempering with telephone alleged in complaint * Reduction in inflated bill disallowed
- 1999#2$ CPC 2,4 2ihar
8(elephone department not in6uiring about bro@en meter and giving inflated bill * 'eld liable for deficienc! in
service - 2""2#2$ CPC 11 ?P
**;nflated bill of Rs 61"69 challenged b! complainant as previous bill never e/ceeded Rs ,%" * =P could not chec@
how sudden spurt in telephone was caused > ;nflated bill 6uashed > 2""9#2$ CPC 19- 'P
8Present bills e/tremel! on higher side than earlier bills * )epartment directed to ad.ust amount of inflated bills -
1994#1$ CPC 166 Chd
)njunction - )istrict 0orum has inherent powers to grant in.unctions in suitable cases against (elephone )eptt -
199%#2$ CPC %39 <2engal
8Redressal 0orums are not empowered to pass interim order b! wa! of in.unctions etc * 1992 CPC ,"1 NC
)nstructions - )epartment is bound to @eep telephone under observation if there is sudden spurt in calls * 9eter
reading also to be ta@en ever! fortnight under instructions * 2""-#2$ CPC 16- Pb
)nsufficient fund * (elephone staff not following departmental instruction in holding in6uir! in defective bills *
'eld1 liable for deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC 1,3 Pb
)nterest - No interest is pa!able on securit! amount deposited for telephone connection - 199,#2$ CPC 33" NC
)nterest on refund - Complainant transferred his =E( telephone * )ela! of 3 months in refund of deposit *
)epartment directed to pa! interest at the rate of 12F per annum - 1996#1$ CPC 646 Chd
9
)nterest on security - (elephone )epartment retained securit! amount for 9 months after disconnection of
telephone * 'eld liable to pa! interest H 12F PA on deposit for said period * 199,#1$ CPC 144 Pb
)nterim order - )istrict 0orum cannot pass interim order under +ection 1- of Consumer Protection Act -
1996#2$ CPC -,4 NC
8)istrict 0orum cannot restrain the (elephone )epartment from disconnecting telephone through an interim order *
199,#1$ CPC %22 'r
)nterpretation - ;t is the real ratio of the case which is relevant and not ever! observation made therein -
199-#2$ CPC 1-3 'r
%andlady#tenant - (enants defaulting in pa!ment of telephone bill * 3andlad! cannot blame )epartment for
disconnection of telephone - 2""1#2$ CPC 1,2 Chd
%ayers mista"e - A litigant should not be allowed to suffer due to mista@e of a law!er - 199,#2$ CPC 299
Pb
%egal Cell fault - )ela! of 3- da!s * )ela! caused b! procedure of 3egal Cell is no ground for condonation -
#eneral Mana$er %&hones' v S!cha Sin$h, 2""3#1$ CPC 1-9 Pb
%iability - :ver! department is liable for illegal acts of its emplo!ees done during discharge of these official
duties - 1999#1$ CPC 161 Pb
8(elephone of wife cannot be disconnected for non pa!ment of bill b! her husband relating to his separate
telephone - 2"""#2$ CPC 62 Pb
%iability for telephone bill * )isconnection of fatherDs telephone on account of non*pa!ment of bill of sonDs
mobile phone is illegal * 2""%#2$ CPC 399 Pb
%iability of the tenant - New tenant cannot be compelled to deposit earlier bill before releasing telephone
connection in his name - 2""-#1$ CPC 221 ?ttaran
%icensee#Consumer - A +()7PC= holder cannot claim relief against (elephone )epartment under the
Consumer Protection Act - 1999#1$ CPC 9" 'P
0eter defect - :/cessive bill due to metering defect * Complainant held entitled to relief - 199,#1$ CPC 24% 'r
8Rebate in e/cessive bill as metering e6uipment was found to be defective * Relief of Rs %1""" each bill of )istrict
0orum .ustified - 199%#2$ CPC 131 'r
0inor relief * 9inor relief relating to wrongful disconnection of telephone granted in 2""1 * =rder warrants no
interference as matter is old one * 2"",#1$ CPC 323 Ra.
0isleading advertisement > =P gave misleading advertisements for promotion of sale of reliance
mobiles > 0ree gift of mobile denied on purchase of re6uisite goods b! the complainant > =Ps directed to pa!
an amount of Rs %"1"""7* as compensation > 2"11#1$ CPC 3,2 NC
0isuse of Telephone - Appellant proved misuser of his telephone b! official staff from .unction bo/ * 2ill of
Rs 31699 reduced to Rs 4%% highest figure of previous bills - 199,#1$ CPC 22% Chd
8Allegation of misuse of telephone not rebutted and telephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of enhanced bill *
=P held liable for deficienc! in service * 2""%#2$ CPC -96 Chd
0obile charge > =P received Rs 19%7* for recharging of mobile but did not recharge the same nor mone! was
refunded > =P directed to refund the amount alongwith compensation7cost of Rs 21""" > 2"1"#1$ CPC 36" Chd
0obile defect * 9obile defect not rectified after receiving Rs 6%" * =pposite Part! directed to refund charges
with Rs 112"" * 2""-#2$ CPC 2"3 Chd
89obile set stopped to function in months after purchase * Respondent directed to refund price of handset with
compensation of Rs %""" * :nhancement in compensation declined * 2"",#1$ CPC 1,% Chd
0obile Phone - Complainant agreed to pa! itemiIed charges for use of mobile phone * Cannot resile from terms
- 2""1#2$ CPC 3,, Chd
**Complainant re6uested to stop )N) #)o not disturb$ calls to service provider violating Rules and Regulations >
=P directed to pa! compensation of Rs 1"1"""7* with cost of Rs 21""" * 2""9#2$ CPC 6,6 9aha
8)espite pa!ment of all dues complaint could not avail facilities of ;+) on mobile phone * =pposite part! directed
to pa! Rs =ne la@h as compensation and restore ;+) and +() to complainant*Bournalist - 1999#2$ CPC 2-- Chd
8)efective * )efects appeared during warrant! period * Not returned after repair * =P directed to return repaired
set without charges * Compensation and cost awarded * 2""4#3$ CPC 2%3 )elhi
89obile phone found to be fault! even after replacement * Refund of amount is .ustified * 2""4#1$ CPC %2 NC
1"
8=P failed to construct tower according to agreed terms * Cell phone became useless * =P directed to pa!
compensation of Rs 3"1""" * 2""6#2$ CPC 61- NC
89obile connection not given within agreed time * =P liable for deficienc! in service * 2""%#1$ CPC 6" Chd
8Ph!sical loss of phone includes damage b! accident * Relief allowed * 2""%#1$ CPC 6"2 NC
0obile phone theft * Necessar! ingredients of theft of mobile phone not proved * Complainant not entitled to
an! relief * 2""4#1$ CPC 1%3 'r
8;nsured mobile stolen as per ))R * Recording of 0;R not essential * ;nsurer bound to pa! full claim * 2""%#2$
CPC 61, Pb
0obile service * )isconnection of outgoing calls facilit! of mobile due to outstanding arrears * =P not liable
for deficienc! in service * 2""-#2$ CPC 3-, )elhi
**Arbitration clause of +ec ,2 of the (elegraph Act1 144% is not applicable to mobile service > +ervice comes within
purview of consumer * 2"1"#3$ CPC 1,3 ?P
**Provisions of section ,*2 of the (elegraph Act are not applicable to mobile service provided b! private operators >
9obile services are covered under consumer dispute under CP Act * 2"1"#3$ CPC 1%2 Pb
8)isconnection of outgoing facilit! of mobile before relevant due date for pa!ment amounts to deficienc! in
service * 2""6#2$ CPC 4 NC
0obile service provider > Complainant re6uested to stop )N) #)o not disturb$ calls to service provider
violating Rules and Regulations > =P directed to pa! compensation of Rs 1"1"""7* with cost of Rs 21""" * 2""9#2$ CPC
6,6 9aha
0obile#Sim card * =P supplied mobile with defective sim card * )irected to refund amount with
compensation1 cost and interest * 2""%#1$ CPC 261 Chd
1egligence - )isconnection of telephone man! times without prior notice * )epartment held liable for
negligence - 2"""#2$ CPC 166 Chd
1es Agency - <orldDs largest News Agenc! cannot claim a bill to be e/cessive as use of telephone depends on
volume of news * ;ts periodical use cannot be uniform - 1994#2$ CPC 3%, NC
1on payment of bill - Complainant failed to pa! bill despite several opportunities to pa! in instalments * Rule
--3 violated * )isconnection .ustified - 2""-#1$ CPC 2,% Pb
8)isconnection of (elephone for non pa!ment of bill of another (elephone constitutes a deficienc! in service -
2""1#2$ CPC 96 Chd
1on-return of sale deed * Postal department refused to return sale deed of retiree officials as he failed to
e/ecute registration of recon!ance deed * Authorities committed no fault * 2""6#1$ CPC ,6 'r
1on Spea"ing &rder - (elephone bill ordered to be revised on average basis b! non spea@ing order * =rder
not sustainable - 1994#1$ CPC -4, ?P
1otice - ComplainantDs telephone disconnected on civil court direction for possession of suit propert! *
)epartment not guilt! for deficienc! in service for disconnection without notice * 2""%#2$ CPC 11- Pondicherr!
8)isconnection of telephone1 without prior notice is illegal - 1993 CPC 6,, 'P
8)isconnection of telephone without notice is illegal especiall! when made due to non pa!ment of inflated bill -
2""3#2$ CPC 1", Pb
8)isconnection of telephone without prior notice is violative of rule of natural .ustice especiall! when subscriber is
not at fault - 1994#1$ CPC -%- Pb
8;ntimation about non*pa!ment of bill through computer is no substitute for a notice re6uired to be issued under
Rule --3 of (elegraph Rules *1994#2$ CPC -2- Pb
8(elephone cannot be disconnected without prior notice to subscriber - 1996#1$ CPC 3-3 Pb
--(elephone disconnected without prior notice of , da!s * Refund of connection charges with Rs %""" as
compensation ordered - 2"""#2$ CPC 11- Pb
--(elephone should not be disconnected without proper notice to the effected part! - 1992 CPC 2,4 'r
8(elephone was disconnected after the pa!ment of bill * No prior notice issued * )epartment held liable for
rendering deficient service - 1994#1$ CPC 23, Pb
8(hough notice in telephone bill is sufficient before disconnection for non*pa!ment of bill1 fresh notice is
mandator! when telephone is disconnected after long dela! - 1999#2$ CPC 14" Pb
&fficials default - Compensation should be recovered from defaulting officials b! (elephone )epartment -
199,#2$ CPC -36 Pb
11
&fficial responsibility - Amount of compensation can be recovered from erring officials causing less to the
)epartment - 199%#2$ CPC ,6 NC
&nus - 2urden to prove that e/cessive bill of telephone was not due to defect in e6uipment lies on department -
2""1#1$ CPC --2 (N
8)epartment should prove that metering e6uipment is not defective when there is sudden spurt in telephone calls -
1996#2$ CPC 9, NC
--=nce billing is found to be e/cessive * =nus to prove that meter e6uipment not defective lies on the )epartment -
1999#1$ CPC 129 'P
&pportunity - ComplainantDs allegations were assured to be true in the absence of opposite part! * =rder cannot
be sustained - 1991 CPC %31 NC
8+ubscriber must be given at least seven da!Ds notice before disconnecting his telephone -1996#1$ CPC 3-3 Pb
&rder - An order passed b! Chairman of )istrict 0orum alone is not legall! valid - 199-#2$ CPC 2,3 2ihar
&verdues bill * Phone can be disconnected even before due date for pa!ment of bill where bill is overdue for
previous bills * 2""6#2$ CPC 3,9 &ar
&verriding effect - Consumer Act being later in time and enacted for welfare of Consumer has overriding
effect on other enactments - 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
P/C/&/ - +etting up of public call office cannot be said to be a commercial venture * Relief allowed under
Consumer Protection Act - 199-#2$ CPC 146 Assam
8A person appl!ing for PC= connection is not a JConsumerK but onl! a 3icensee * 2""-#2$ CPC 2%" ?ttaranchal
8)isconnection * Person if engaged in activit! to earn livelihood1 would not fall under definition of commercial
purpose * Complainant is consumer and entitled to relief * 2""4#3$ CPC 226 NC
**Respondent running a PC= deposited securit! > CC2 remained defective for two months > 0ranchisee
could not be considered as consumer under C P Act > =rder of )istrict 0orum dismissing the complaint upheld
> 2"11#1$ CPC 3"4 NC
P/C/&/ holder - A holder of +()7PC= is a licensee of (elephone )epartment * 'e is not a consumer under
the Act - 1999#1$ CPC 9" 'P
8A PC= holder is a licencee of (elephone )epartment * Complaint regarding defective apparatus not
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act *1994#1$ CPC --" 'r
P/C/&/ machine - )ealer failed to suppl! PC= machine against draft of Rs 2219"" nor amount was refunded *
)irected to refund the amount * 9anufacturer not liable for deficienc! in service - 2"""#2$ CPC 3-6 Chd
P/C/&/#S/T/D/ - ;t is settled that a PC= holder is a mere licensee * )oes not come under the definition of a
consumer * Relief for refusal of connection declined - 1994#1$ CPC 6-6 Pb
8A franchise holder running a PC=7+() is not a consumer * Complaint against e/cessive billing not maintainable *
2""6#2$ CPC 3%% 'r
--2ooth for starting PC= could not be installed due to threat of goondas * =P directed to allot alternative booth *
2""-#2$ CPC 32% =rissa
8'older of PC=7+() does not come under the definition of a consumer * 2""6#1$ CPC 19- Pb
Particulars of payment * )isconnection of telephone simpl! for non*suppl! of particulars of pa!ment is
illegal * 2""-#2$ CPC 33- (N
Payment of )nterest - )ela! in pa!ment of an amount ordered b! )istrict 0orum * 0urther pa!ment of Rs 2%"
b! wa! of interest ordered to be paid - 2""1#1$ CPC 234 <2engal
Penal clause - Ad.ustment of rebate in telephone bill cannot be made in proceedings initiated under +ection 2,
of CP Act - 1994#2$ CPC -49 Pb
Pilferage - A bald statement to prove pilferage for issuing e/cessive bill not sufficient - 199,#2$ CPC 1, Chd
Pleading - An order based upon mere pleading and without an! evidence led b! parties1 is no order in the e!es of
law - 199-#2$ CPC 6-9 Au.
8Point about telephone bill not revised before )istrict 0orum cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal ( 1994#1$
CPC -,9 9P
12
Poer of attorney > 'older of power of attorne! cannot file a complaint in his own name > 2""9#1$ CPC 34
NC
Poer of consumer fora - Authorities under CP Act perform .udicial function and their orders are
enforceable li@e the decree passed b! the Civil Court - 2""3#2$ CPC %39 &erala 'C %39 02
Precedent - Galuable consumer right cannot be brushed aside b! casual references to a .udgment not cited before
)istrict 0orum - 199-#1$ CPC 3, 'r
Prior notice - )isconnection of telephone without prior notice is illegal - 1994#1$ CPC 3", Pb
Procedure - An order passed in contravention of provisions of +ection 13 #2$ of the Consumer Protection Act1
onl! on the basis of pleadings1 is not sustainable - 199-#2$ CPC 2,3 2ihar
8:vidence * Complainant defaulted thrice in producing evidence before )istrict 0orum * Cannot be allowed to
produce the same in appeal - 1996#1$ CPC 362 Chandigarh
8Provisions of (elegraph Act is no bar against a remed! under the Consumer Protection Act - 199%#1$ CPC 13-
2ihar
8+trict technicalities of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the Act being a beneficent statute - 1991 CPC
-,4 'r
Prosecution - =P made a general statement through affidavit den!ing allegation of complainant * Prosecution of
=P without initiation b! court not warranted - 2""3#1$ CPC 6-% Chd
Provisional relief - Provisional arrangement of pa!ment is not a final acceptance of subscriberDs demand for
reduction in bill - 1996#1$ CPC 2,2 'r
2uestion of title - 9erel! that 6uestion of title relating to telephone bill is involved in complaint * )epartment
cannot be made to suffer - 1999#1$ CPC 3%- Pb
'ebate in bill - +ufficient rebate given b! )istrict 0orum * No ground for granting more relief in appeal -
1996#1$ CPC -16 'r
'ecovery - Civil Court and not Consumer 0orum is proper authorit! for recover! of telephone bill wrongl! paid *
2""-#2$ CPC 2%6 ?ttaranchal
'ectification of bill - )istrict 0orum passed the order under a wrong impression that telephone had been
restored * Restoration of telephone and rectification of bill ordered in appeal - 199,#1$ CPC 39" Chd
'edemption of bonds - 9(N3 bonds sent for redemption were intercepted and encashed b! some one *
Petitioner directed to pa! redemption value of bonds with 12F interest - 2""2#2$ CPC ,6 NC
'eduction in telephone bill - +udden rise in telephone bills without reason * Reduction in bill allowed -
2""2#2$ CPC 3%" Chd
'egistration of F)' - )istrict 0orum directed registration of 0;R against the petitioner against which no relief
relating to telephone bill was claimed * =rder of 0orum is erroneous and liable to be 6uashed * 2""4#2$ CPC 646 'P
'eliance mobile gift * =P gave misleading advertisements for promotion of sale of reliance mobiles >
0ree gift of mobile denied on purchase of re6uisite goods b! the complainant > =Ps directed to pa! an amount
of Rs %"1"""7* as compensation > 2"11#1$ CPC 3,2 NC
'elief - )emand of relief raised ;st time in appeal * Relief declined - 2""3#1$ CPC 6-% Chd
8Consumer 0orums not debarred from granting relief not pra!ed in complaint1 complainant has suffered the loss or
damage - 1991 CPC 26, NC
8Relief on appeal filed b! =pposite Part! cannot be granted to complainant7respondent * 2""-#2$ CPC -91 Chd
8+ ,*A of (elegraph Act is no bar against a relief sought under the CP Act - 1992 CPC 232 NC
'emedy - Consumer Act provides an additional remed! * ;t is not in derogation of an! of other law -1991 CPC
36" 'r
'emote cause - Cause and effect of an incident sufficientl! connected * Cause cannot be said to be a remote
cause - 1993 CPC %,, 'P
8Compensation should be based on actual loss and not on remote cause of loss - 1994#2$ CPC 143 Pb
'es judicata - Compalainant defaulter for non pa!ment of telephone arrears * 0;R maintained b! 'igh Court *
Consumer .urisdiction barred b! Rule of res-)!dicata - 2"""#1$ CPC %"% Pb
--:arlier complaint dismissed in default * +econd complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable - 1993
CPC 126 'r
13
80irst complaint dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh one * +econd complaint not barred b! res
)!dicata - 2"""#2$ CPC %3 Chd
8:arlier telephone connection was restored without an! compensation * +ubse6uent compensation awarded for non
inclusion of complainantDs name in director! not .ustified - 2""2#2$ CPC 346 <2engal
8(elephone disconnected during pendenc! of earlier Complaint * Complainant cannot be denied damages for
disconnection made in subse6uent complaint * 1993 CPC 2"2 NC
'estoration of case - )istrict 0orum is competent to order the restoration of complaint dismissed in default
even if there is no e/plicit provision in the Act - 199%#2$ CPC 2%1 'r
'eturn of complaint - <here claim e/ceeds pecuniar! .urisdiction it should be returned to the complainant
for filing in a proper court - 2""1#1$ CPC 2-9 (N
'evie - Complaint against e/cessive telephone bill dismissed * Review under CP Act not maintainable -
2""3#2$ CPC %,% NC
8=nce the order passed b! +tate Commission has become final the same cannot be reviewed under the CP Act -
Asho* K!mar v Tele+hone De+artment, ,ind, 199,#1$ CPC 2%3 'r
'evie of order - (here is no power of review of an order under the CP Act * 2""6#2$ CPC -62 'P
'evisional Poers - National Commission can call for the records to pass an appropriate order where it finds
some illegalit! in the order - 1991 CPC -11 NC
'evisional poer of .igh Court - Power of 'igh Court under Article 226 are wide but circumscribed b!
certain basic principles - 2""3#2$ CPC %39 &erala 'C #02$
'ight to information - 2ill of mobile could not be paid due to absence of proper information * )isconnection
of mobile b! compan! held to be un.ustified * 2""6#2$ CPC 4 NC
Seal by C/!/)/ - )epartment was charging bill for telephone dead for the last 6 !ears * (elephone was sealed b!
C2; * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 2%1""" as compensation - 1999#2$ CPC %32 Pb
Sealing of Telephone - )epartment was charging bill for telephone dead for the last 6 !ears * (elephone was
sealed b! C2; * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 2%1""" as compensation - 1999#2$ CPC %32 Pb
Service - )igging up of roads for la!ing of telephone cable1 is not a part of service hired b! telephone consumers
- 1992 CPC %,2 NC
--+ervices provided under ;ndian (elegraph Act are not e/cluded from the ambit of CP Act - 2""3#2$ CPC %39
&erala 'C #02$
8(elephone service falls under the definition of J+erviceK given under the Act - 1991 CPC 31 NC
Spea"ing &rder - (elephone * =rder of +tate Commission based upon no reasoning * =rder cannot be
sustained1 being not a spea@ing order - 1992 CPC 6%, NC
Special category - ?ndue dela! in giving connection to a freedom* fighter under special categor! * Connection
to be released at once - S!b Divisional -""icer %Tele+hone' v. Ravi Rattan, 1994#2$ CPC 29" 'r
Speedy remedy - Consumer Act provides speed! remed! * Arbitration clause in (elegraph Act does not
preclude remed! under the Consumer Act - 1991 CPC -- NC
8+ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act cannot stand in the wa! of speed! relief which can be granted under the Consumer
Act - 1991 CPC 66- NC
Spurt - <hen there is spurt in call1 (elephone )epartment should find out the real cause even b! going to the
premises of subscriber * 9ere observation sitting in :/change =ffice is not enough - 1994#2$ CPC 1-% Pb
Statutory la - (ariff rates are fi/ed under +tatute #(elegraph Act$ * Not open to challenge under CP Act -
1991 CPC 41 NC
Sudden spurt - ;nvestigation in 6uestion of defective metre or misuser thereof must be held * )epartmental
instructions are mandator! in this regard * 2""-#2$ CPC 13- Pb
8+udden spurt in calls * No official deputed to in6uire in the matter * 2ill being e/cessive set aside * S.D.-.
%Tele+hone', #!rdas+!r v. .ed &ar*ash1 2""-#2$ CPC 2-" 2-" Pb
8+udden spurt in number of calls * No investigation made b! )epartment * Revised bills to be issued on average
basis - 1994#1$ CPC 3-9 )elhi
8+udden spurt in telephone bill * +ubscriber not liable to pa! the bill * Restoration of connection ordered - Kamal)it
Ka!r v. Telecom District /n$ineer, Hoshiar+!r, 199,#2$ CPC 314 Pb
1-
--+udden spurt in telephone calls resulting in huge bills * Case remanded to be decided in compliance of 1946
instructions * 2""4#1$ CPC %"6 'P
Sudden spurt in bill - +udden spurt in telephone bill from hundreds to thousands * Reduction in bill must be
allowed - Union o" India v. Devinder K!mar #!+ta, 1994#1$ CPC 23- Pb
Sufficient cause - Cop! of order misplaced b! Advocate * )ela! of 196 da!s cannot be condoned as reason not
sufficient * 2""-#2$ CPC 22% NC
8)ela! of %6 da!s in filing appeal * Contention of loss of case file sent through courier not proved * Condonation of
dela! declined - 2""1#2$ CPC 2-2 Pb
S/T/D/ - ;nflated bill issued * +() not used b! complainant * )efect not removed * ;nflated bill rightl! waived
off * 2""-#1$ CPC 399 ?ttranchal
8Appellant demanding e/cessive bill for ;+) calls for which no re6uest was made b! respondent * Respondent
came to @now about ;+) facilities when print out were filed * Respondent not liable to ma@e the pa!ment * 2"",#1$ CPC
%3% 'P
S/T/D/ Facilities - A bill of Rs 31491 was alleged to be e/cessive * +() facilities available * )epartment not
at fault - 1994#2$ CPC -9 Chd
82ill alleged to be e/cessive * +() facilities availed * No mischief with telephone passed * Relief declined -
1994#2$ CPC 32 Chd
82ills in 6uestion cannot be held e/cessive merel! on basis of previous bills * :speciall! when +() facilit! is
being availed - 1999#2$ CPC 3% (N
--Complainant availing +() facilities * <ithdrawal of bill in entiret! not .ustified * 2ill reduced to some e/tent -
1994#2$ CPC 139 'r
8Complainant having +() facilit! * 9eter wor@ing properl! * (elephone bill cannot be said to be inflated -
2""1#1$ CPC %-1 ?P
8)epartment is bound to accept the repeated re6uest of complainant for disconnection of +() facilities at the
earliest - 1996#2$ CPC 36- 'r
80acilities of restoring connection unauthorisedl! provided b! )epartment * +ubscriber held not at fault - 1992
CPC 623 NC
8Relief demanded regarding inflated telephone bills * Award of compensation for dela! in disconnection of +() is
without .urisdiction - 199,#1$ CPC 93 NC
8+() facilities not withdrawn despite re6uest of subscriber * )epartment guilt! of negligence - 199,#2$ CPC 314
Pb
8+() facilities provided against demand of complainant * )isconnection for non*pa!ment of huge bill is illegal *
1994#1$ CPC 36" 'r
8(here is no ground to hold that there was an! deficienc! in service on the part of Respondent )epartment -
199,#2$ CPC 1, Chd
S/T/D/ Payphone - An allottee of +() pa!phone is not a consumer as he had hired his service to the ?nion
of ;ndia * 'e is not a hirer of service - 199-#1$ CPC %93 'r
S/T/D/ Phone - (elephone provided with +() facilit! * 2ill found not e/cessive in in6uir! * Relief declined -
2""-#1$ CPC 34, ?ttranchal
S/T/D/#)/S/D/ Facility - +() facilit! also includes ;+) facilit! * Consumer bound to pa! for using ;+)
number - 2""2#1$ CPC 13- )elhi
1%
8No attention paid to complainantDs re6uest for withdrawal of +() facilities * Complainant entitled to rebate in
enhanced bills - 2""2#2$ CPC 3%" Chd
S/T/D/#P/C/&/ - A licensee holder of +()7PC= is not a consumer even if he is described as a hirer of PC= -
199%#1$ CPC 233 Au.
Technicalities - =rder not legall! sustainable * Relief should not be denied on technical grounds of limitation -
#eneral Mana$er, Telecom v M0s #!rdarshan Sin$h Somal, 2"""#1$ CPC 1"" Pb
Tele, system - ;nstallation of tele/ s!stem1 damaged b! lightening * Complaint1 in the absence of hiring of
service1 not maintainable - 1999#1$ CPC 19 NC
Telegram - Complainant could not see his mother before she e/pired as telegram reached after two da!s *
Compensation of Rs %1""" .ustified - 1999#1$ CPC 293 AP
8)epartment not liable for dela! in deliver! of telegram unless mala fide intention of official is proved - 1996#1$
CPC -%9 NC
**Complainant suffered mental tension due to dela!ed telegram * Rs 21""" awarded as compensation to complainant
- 199-#1$ CPC 4, 2om
8)ela! in deliver! of telegram * )eficienc! proved * Complainant entitled of Rs 2"" - 1993 CPC -3, ?P
8)ela! in sending telegram due to defect in line * No negligence can be attributed to the )epartment - 1996#1$ CPC
2-" (N
8No immunit! is provided to Aovernment =fficers b! +ection 9 of the (elegraph Act though its officials are
immune for negligence in deliver! of telegraphic message - 1993 CPC 39, 'r
8No mala fide or mischievous act about deliver! of telegram pleaded in complaint * Complaint barred b! +ection 9
of (elegraph Act ( 1999#2$ CPC 3-1 (N
8Non*deliver! of telegram on account of non*availabilit! of addressee * Complaint against )epartment not
maintainable in view of Rule % of (elegraph Rules - 1994#2$ CPC -,, (N
8(elegram containing condolence message not reaching the destination * Complainant held entitled to refund of
telegram charges - 199%#1$ CPC -"4 )elhi
8(elegram sent b! complainant was lost in transit * Compensation of Rs 11""" awarded to the complainant - 1991
CPC -99 (N
8?sual dela! in delivering telegrams b! (elegraph Authorities * Complainant held entitled to Rs 2%1""" as
compensation for suffering mental agon! - 199%#1$ CPC %12 B C &
8<rong message of death conve!ed through telegram b! mista@e * 9atter covered under (elegraph Rules *
Consumer .urisdiction barred - 1999#1$ CPC 13- (N
Telegraph Act - 9atter covered under (elegraph Act * Consumer .urisdiction is ousted -199-#1$ CPC %24 'r
Telegraph Department - No negligence on the part of )epartment in delivering the telegram proved * Relief
cannot be given to the complainant - 1991 CPC 6"9 Ra.
8(elephone disconnected contrar! to agreement * Complainant can claim compensation as a consumer - 1991 CPC
-,4 'r
Telegram delivery - (elegram about selection for a cause for a delivered to a person at address given in the
prescribed form * =P not liable for deficienc! in service * 2""%#1$ CPC 64" &ar
Telegraph 'ules - (elephone authorit! cannot be held liable for omission of name and number in director!
under CP Act in view of Rule -%, of (elegraph Rules - 2""2#1$ CPC 224 <2engal
Rule --3 of (elegraph Rules ( 1994#2$ CPC -2- Pb
(elegraph service * ;nordinate dela! of % da!s in deliver! of urgent telegram * =pposite Part! held liable for
deficienc! in service * 2""-#2$ CPC 269 (N
Telegraphic 0oney &rder - Rs %" sent through (elegraphic 9one! =rder did not reach its destination *
Complainant1 as a consumer held entitled to compensation of Rs 2,% in total - 1991 CPC -29 &ar
Tele mar"eting calls - ?nsolicited tele mar@eting calls were being made at an! point of time disturbing the
citiIens * 2an@ directed not to disturb privac! of consumer b! ma@ing such calls * 2""4#2$ CPC 3%3 NC
Telephone - A bald statement to prove pilferage for issuing e/cessive bill not sufficient - 199,#2$ CPC 1, Chd
8A francise holder1 even if described as hirer of the PC=1 is not a consumer under the Act - 199-#1$ CPC 1",
NC
8A person en.o!ing free telephone facilities is not a consumer - 199%#2$ CPC 116 'r
16
8A single complaint b! 19 persons regarding violation of list for telephone connection held not legall!
maintainable - 2""1#2$ CPC 166 Chd
8Absence of cordialit! on the part of telephone )epartment amounts to a deficienc! in services*1992 CPC 231
=rissa
8Alleged defect in (elephone :lectric +!stem purchased for commercial purpose * Complainant not a Consumer
under the Act - 199%#1$ CPC %- (N
8An heir of a telephone subscriber cannot maintain a consumer dispute without getting the connection transferred
in his name - 199-#2$ CPC 33- 'r
8Average calls * )istrict 0orum cannot fi/ the number of calls on the basis of average calls during previous period
- 1992 CPC 6%6 Pb
8Average consumption * Reduction in telephone bill on the basis of average of previous bills is not permissible -
1996#1$ CPC 22" 'r
82efore a subscriber approaches the consumer agencies he should file complaint in writing to the department
against e/cess billing - 199%#2$ CPC 22 Ra.
--2ill being regularl! paid * )isconnection of telephone amounts to deficienc! in service * Awarded Rs 1"1""" -
199,#2$ CPC 3, 'P
82ill not paid for one of 3 telephones of same person * )isconnection of other 2 telephones is .ustified under Rule
--3 of (elephone Rules - 1999#1$ CPC %41 NC
8Compensation * (elephone )epartment was negligent in not shifting e/ternal e/tension * Complainant awarded
Rs 11-"" as compensation - 1991 CPC -1- AP
8Complainant #with +()$ receiving e/cessive bills * 'eld entitled to rebate in bills - #2$ CPC %6 Pb
8Complainant denied connection on technical grounds b! brea@ing priorit! * 'eld entitled to get connection with
compensation of Rs %""" - 199%#1$ CPC ,6 (N
8Complainant not informing authorities for not having +() facilities in time * 'eld liable to pa! %"F of enhanced
bill - 1996#2$ CPC -1- Chd
8Complainant receiving inflated bill * 9etering defect established * 'eld entitled to compensation -199-#2$ CPC
3-2 &ar
8Complainant refused to pa! 2%F commission on purchases to B(= * :/cessive bill issued * Complainant
allowed rebate of 2""" calls - 1996#1$ CPC -%- Ra.
8Complainant transferred his =E( telephone * )ela! of 3 months in refund of deposit * )epartment directed to pa!
interest H 12F per annum - 1996#1$ CPC 646 Chd
8ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for one !ear * No action ta@en on repeated complaints * )epartment
directed to pa! Rs 2"1""" - 199,#2$ CPC -%4 Pb
8ComplainantDs telephone was illegall! disconnected * Rs %1""" awarded as compensation * 1991 CPC 699 Pb
8Complaint against (elephone )epartment for negligence is maintainable * Remed! under CP Act is an additional
remed! - 199,#2$ CPC 299 Pb
8)efect in meter * Proper course is to refer the matter to Arbitrator under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act - 199,#1$
CPC 6%1 NC
8)efect in telephone dul! proved from unrebutted assertions made in affidavit * Complainant entitled to
compensation - 1999#2$ CPC 6,- Pb
8)eficienc! in service * Appellant1 a medical practitioner1 suffered loss due to absence of telephone amenities due
to negligence of )epartment * :ntitled to enhanced compensation - 1992 CPC 61% 'r
--)ela! in giving the connection due to complainantDs fault * (elephone )epartment not liable to compensate the
complainant - 1993 CPC 6%9 NC
8)ela! of more than 3 !ears in giving connection * )epartment liable to refund the amount with interest and
ancillar! relief - 199%#2$ CPC 123 'r
8)ela! of two da!s in removal of telephone defect after lodging of complaint * Rs 2"" awarded as compensation -
199%#2$ CPC 169 9aha
8)emand of additional securit! from old subscriber is not a deficient service - 199-#1$ CPC -6- NC
8)emand of additional securit! from subscribers is not a deficienc! in service - 199-#2$ CPC 146 Assam
8)epartment disconnected telephone without .ustification * +ubscriber held entitled to relief - 199-#2$ CPC 66 Pb
8)epartment is bound to @eep telephone under observation if there is sudden spurt in calls * 9eter reading also to
be ta@en ever! fortnight under instructions * 2""-#2$ CPC 16- Pb
8)eposit of Rs 221""" b! complainant * Pa!*phone not installed for considerable time * ;nterest of 14F on deposit
awarded to complainant - 1993 CPC 3"4 'r
1,
8)eptt cannot charge an! rent for the period when not a single call was made * Complainant awarded Rs 31""" for
remaining the phone out of order - 199,#2$ CPC 43 Pb
8)isconnection * (elephone remained out of order for ," da!s out of % months * (elephone disconnected for non*
pa!ment of heav! bill of Rs 3%112, Complainant awarded Rs 21""" as compensation *1991 CPC 26, NC
8)isconnection of private phone for non pa!ment of bill of )epartmental phone of complainant illegal * )eficienc!
in service proved * (elephone ordered to be restored - 2""3#1$ CPC -46 Chd
8)isconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of disputed bill and without prior notice is illegal - 199%#1$ CPC 293
Ra.
8)isconnection of telephone prior to date for pa!ment of bill is illegal * )epartment was directed to pa! Rs %1"""
and to reconnect the telephone free of charges 199%#2$ CPC 3"" (N
8)isconnection of telephone without prior notice held to be illegal - 1993 CPC 3,6 'r
8)isconnection of telephone without prior notice is illegal * Notice must be in writing and not a mere telephone
massage - 199-#2$ CPC 1-3 'r
8)isconnection without proper notice * Connection ordered to be restored - 1991 CPC 21, #B C &$
--)istrict 0orum referring telephone matter to arbitrator and sta!ing disconnection * =rder is .ust and proper -
1996#2$ CPC -,4 NC
8:/cess billing * Consumer 0orums are competent to decide the matter of e/cess billing * +ection , of (elegraph
Act is no bar - 1991 CPC 26, NC
8:/cessive bill * )epartment not producing relevant record to rebut allegation of e/cessive bill * Complainant held
entitled to %"F rebate in the bill - 1999#2$ CPC %%4 Chd
8:/cessive bill * ;n the absence of proof of defective meter1 relief on the basis of highest number of calls in the
past1 cannot be granted - 1991 CPC %-% )elhi
8:/cessive bill given due to blatant misuse of )epartment emplo!ees * Consumer entitled to relief * 1993 CPC 4%,
'r
80act of inflated bill not rebutted b! )epartment * Reduction in bill .ustified - 1993 CPC ,94 ?P
80inancial liabilities full! discharged * :ven then telephone was disconnected * )epartment directed to pa! Rs
31""" to complainant -199-#1$ CPC 6%, 'r
80inding of fact about e/cessive bill not to be disturbed in revision - 199-#1$ CPC 692 NC
80orger! alleged in misusing telephone of Complainant b! her son * Remed! lies before Civil Court - 199,#1$ CPC
6%4 NC
80our telephones of business premises of complainant remained non*functional for , da!s * Award of Rs ,1""" to
complainant not on the higher side - 1994#2$ CPC --1 Pb
8Ahost bill * (he (elephone )epartment cannot be e/pected to as@ for pa!ment of ghost bill from a subscriber -
199-#1$ CPC -,- < 2engal
8;llegal disconnection caused death of complainantDs ailing wife as doctorDs aid could not be got in time *
Compensation of Rs 2%1""" allowed to complainant - 1993 CPC %,, 'P
8;nordinate dela! in unloc@ing +() )!namic Code * Case of patent deficienc! in services established - 199-#1$
CPC %," 'r
8;nstructions * Non observance of )epartmental ;nstructions b! (elephone +taff amounting to deficienc! in service
- 199,#2$ CPC 314 Pb
89(N3 and its agents are covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act1 as the! provide service to
the general public for consideration - 1993 CPC 66- )elhi
89ention of wrong Rule in the notice for disconnection is no ground to hold the )epartment liable for deficienc!
in service - 1993 CPC 66" )elhi
--9ethodolog! of allowing an increase of onl! 2%F on the highest bill of previous !ears is not sustainable in ever!
case - 1992 CPC %34 'r
89inor amount of bill alleged to be e/cessive * Relief denied - 199-#1$ CPC 41 ?P
89isuse of telephone b! )epartment emplo!ees presumed from facts of the case * Refund of e/cess amount with
14F interest allowed - 1994#2$ CPC -% 9P
89isuser of telephone b! )epartment staff * 9atter cannot be referred to Arbitrator * 2ill should be revised on
average basis - 1999#2$ CPC -1- Pb
8No bill served on complainant * )isconnection without notice * Relief awarded to complainant - 1993 CPC 66,
NC
8Pa!ment not made b! subscriber as the bill was inflated one * )isconnection of telephone * Complainant held
entitled to compensation - 1991 CPC 333 NC
14
85uestion of lev! of telephone charges for calls of a particular nature1 cannot be decided b! the Consumer 0orums
- 199-#2$ CPC 16, NC
8Rebate in calls raises the presumption that the meter was defective - 199%#1$ CPC 11" 2ihar
8Reduction in bill * )istrict 0orum reduced bill rel!ing upon observations made b! Commission in earlier order *
=rder of )istrict 0orum legall! valid - 1999#1$ CPC -- Chd
8Respondent1 a private Compan!1 failed to collect bill amount from the complainant consumer * (elephone
disconnected * Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs 2"1""" 1993 CPC 66- )elhi
8+() * Complainant availing +() facilities * )etailed print out of calls produced b! )epartment * Relief in bill
declined - 1994#2$ CPC 2%" Chd
8+purt rising in calls due to defect in meter * Reframing of correct bill .ustified - 1994#2$ CPC 134 'r
8+ubscribers as consumer of telephone service are entitled to see@ relief from the Consumer 0orum - 1992 CPC 1
NC
8+udden spurt in calls * No investigation in cause of spurt held * ;nflated bill issued on basis of such calls
un.ustified * 2""-#2$ CPC 13- Pb
--(elephone connection not restored despite pa!ment of bill * )irected to restore the same after receiving pa!ment
of revised bill- 1994#2$ CPC 23 'r
8(elephone damaged b! lightening was repaired after one month and 1" da!s after sanction of higher authorities *
)epartment not liable for deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC %-2 Pb
8(elephone department for issuing inflated bill information about print out etc * 'eld1 guilt! of deficienc! in
service - 1994#1$ CPC %36 Chd
8(elephone )epartment found negligent in responding to boo@ing calls * 'eld liable to pa! Rs 11""" - 199%#2$
CPC 6-3 'r
8(elephone )eptt directed to pa! compensation b! e/* parte order for issuance of e/cessive bill * Case remitted
for fresh disposal - 1996#2$ CPC 211 NC
8(elephone disconnected after bill was paid * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 1"""" as compensation - 199,#1$
CPC 1,, Pb
8(elephone disconnected due to non*pa!ment of inflated bill * =rder of )istrict 0orum regarding connection
restored with compensation is .ustified - 1994#2$ CPC 32 'r
8(elephone disconnected during pendenc! of earlier complaint * Complainant cannot be denied damages for
disconnection made in subse6uent complaint - 1993 CPC 2"2 NC
8(elephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill when telephone remained dead * )epartment held liable to pa!
compensation of Rs 1"1""" with costs to complainant - 1996#1$ CPC 3-3 Pb
8(elephone disconnected without notice * +ubscriber held entitled to compensation and refund of rental charges -
199%#1$ CPC 9% <est 2engal
8(elephone disconnected without prior notice of , da!s * Refund of connection charges with Rs %""" as
compensation ordered * 2"""#2$ CPC 11- Pb
8(elephone of complainant law!er remained non*functional for 1" da!s * Compensation of Rs 1"1""" allowed *
2""%#1$ CPC 42 )elhi
8(elephone services fall within the purview of the Consumer Act * (elephone service is also covered as service
under the Act - 1991 CPC -1- AP
8(elephone was disconnected though complainant had paid the bill * =rder of restoration of connection .ustified *
Revision b! a third person who was not a part! in complaint dies not lie under the Act - 199%#1$ CPC 23, 9P
--(elephone was illegall! shifted b! the (elephone )epartment * Complainant held entitled to compensation - 1991
CPC -- NC
8(elephones remained out of order for 1- da!s * (heft of cable no defense * =P to pa! Rs %"" to each
complainant * 2""-#2$ CPC 664 Chd
8(o ascertain as to which telephones were wor@ing during the stri@e period1 notice should be published in
newspapers inviting information - 1992 CPC 11, NC
8?ndue dela! in providing cellphone service after receipt of deposit * )epartment directed to refund deposits with
12F interest - 1999#1$ CPC -61 Pb
8<orldDs largest News Agenc! cannot claim a bill to be e/cessive as use of telephone depends on volume of news
* ;ts periodical use cannot be uniform - 1994#2$ CPC 3%, NC
Telephone 3S/T/D/4 - =vercharging of telephone bill * Complainant held entitled to compensation - 199%#1$
CPC 13- 2ihar
19
8No action on re6uest for withdrawal of +() facilities for -*172 !ears * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in
service - 199,#1$ CPC 631 Pb
Telephone bill - A consumer cannot be burdened with rental charges for the period during which telephone
remained disconnected - 199%#2$ CPC 12, 'r
8A husband is not liable for an! financial liabilit! of his wife to the (elephone )epartment - 199-#1$ CPC 3, 'r
8A subscriber depositing the bill on due date is not obliged to inform the )epartment about the deposit - 199-#2$
CPC 619 =rissa
8A telephone bill during period of +() cannot be said to be e/cessive but for subse6uent period relief could be
granted b! )istrict 0orum - 2""2#1$ CPC -,- ?P
8A telephone bill issued on average basis is not proper without proof of defective e6uipment or misuse of telephone
- 2""1#2$ CPC 1-" Chd
8A telephone call cannot be considered as matured b! mere commencement of bell * 9issed calls cannot be treated
as matured calls * 2"",#2$ CPC 2"% Pb
8After matter of e/cessive bill is referred for arbitration * )istrict 0orum cannot 6uash the amount of bill - 2""1#1$
CPC --2 (N
8Allegation of misuse of telephone not rebutted and telephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of enhanced bill *
=P held liable for deficienc! in service * harat Sanchar 2i$am Ltd. v. .irendra Sin$h Malhan1 2""%#2$ CPC -96 Chd
--Amount of bill of previous subscriber added in the bill * Complainant held entitled to refund of e/cess amount
with 1%F interest - 1996#1$ CPC 361 Chd
8An award of Arbitrator about telephone bill under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act is not sub.ect to challenge before
Consumer 0orum - 1994#2$ CPC %21 Pb
8Appeal against an award given b! Arbitrator under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act is not maintainable under CP
Act - 199,#1$ CPC --- NC
8Appellant demanding e/cessive bill for ;+) calls for which no re6uest was made b! respondent * Respondent
came to @now about ;+) facilities when print out were filed * Respondent not liable to ma@e the pa!ment * 2"",#1$ CPC
%3% 'P
8Average consumption cannot be made the basis for determination of number of calls - 199%#2$ CPC 6% 'r
8Average consumption of previous bills cannot be made the basis of calculation of telephone bill - 1996#1$ CPC
2," 'r
82ill alleged to be e/cessive * +() facilities availed * No mischief with telephone passed * Relief declined -
1994#2$ CPC 32 Chd
82ill alleged to be inflated * Reference to Arbitrator is legall! valid - 2""3#2$ CPC 6,2 Chd
82ill cannot be charged for the period when telephone remains out of order * 199%#2$ CPC ,9 'r
82ill found to be e/cessive * Complainant held liable to pa! bill at the rate which was highest during the previous
period - 1993 CPC 3-% ?P
82ill found to be e/cessive * )irected to correct the bill on basis of average of 3 preceding bills * 199%#1$ CPC 1"4
2ihar
82ill found to be e/cessive as comparing to the billing of last % !ears * )epartment directed to refund e/cess
amount - 1999#1$ CPC 129 'P
82ill issued for period when telephone has been surrendered * Rental charges for such period 6uashed - 1994#2$
CPC -33 Pb
82illing on the previous average of ma/imum number of calls stands disapproved - 1992 CPC 6"6 'r
82ills found to be highl! inflated * (elephone installed in residential premises * )epartment directed to charge onl!
6"F of the bill - 1994#2$ CPC -9- Chd
82ills in 6uestion cannot be held e/cessive merel! on basis of previous bills * :speciall! when +() facilit! is
being availed *1999#2$ CPC 3% (N
--Compalainant defaulter for non pa!ment of telephone arrears * 0;R maintained b! 'igh Court * Consumer
.urisdiction barred b! Rule of res*.udicata - 2"""#1$ CPC %"% Pb
8Compensation of Rs %"" awarded b! )istrict 0orum for wrongfull! disconnection of telephone held to be
.ustified as e/tra amount was added to bill inadvertentl! - 1996#2$ CPC 3%9 'r
8Complainant approached the Commission during pendenc! of his representation before the )epartment * Not
entitled to an! compensation - 1993 CPC 694 NC
8Complainant availing +() facilities * )etailed print out of calls produced b! )epartment * Relief in bill
declined - 1994#2$ CPC 2%" Chd
2"
8Complainant availing +() facilities * No metering defect or misuse of telephone proved * No reduction can be
allowed in the bill - 1994#1$ CPC 1-1 'P
8Complainant availing +() facilities * <ithdrawal of bill in entiret! not .ustified * 2ill reduced from Rs 61346 to
Rs -1346 - 1994#2$ CPC 139 'r
8Complainant availing +()7;+) facilities with d!namic loc@ing s!stem * Reduction in bill without reason held
to be un.ustified - 1999#2$ CPC 2" Chd
8Complainant availing +() facilities * No proof of misuser of telephone * 2ill cannot be determined on average
basis * 1994#1$ CPC %3" Pb
8Complainant failed to prove meter tempering of his telephone b! an! evidence e/cept baseless allegation *
ComplainantDs claim re.ected - 2"""#2$ CPC 24 Chd
8Complainant filing false affidavit regarding previous bills * Not entitled to an! relief - 199,#1$ CPC -"1 Chd
8Complainant had applied for +() connection * 2ills issued for ;+) calls is illegal - 1994#2$ CPC 33% Pb
8Complainant having +() facilit! * 9eter wor@ing properl! * (elephone bill cannot be said to be inflated -
2""1#1$ CPC %-1 ?P
8Complainant himself at fault for not using the d!namic loc@ing Code * Relief for e/cessive bill declined - 2""2#1$
CPC 31 Chd
--Complainant not coming with clean hands as similar matter was pending in Civil Court * Relief denied - 1993
CPC 13 Pb
8Complainant paid bill as per final settlement * )emand against settlement b! department is un.ustified *
Complainant entitled to compensation * 2""%#2$ CPC %63 Pondicherr!
8Complainant served with e/cessive bills * Galidit! of bills cannot be maintained - 199-#1$ CPC 24- NC
8Complainant utilising +() facilities * No defect in meter established * No rebate can be given in telephone bill -
1996#2$ CPC %3, NC
8Complainant1 telephone holder1 gave no guarantee against bill of a mobile holder * 'e cannot be held liable to
pa!ment of bill of mobile of defaulter * 2""%#2$ CPC %-, Pb
8ComplainantDs allegation regarding disconnection of telephone was found td to be false * Relief declined to
complainant - 199-#1$ CPC 23- )elhi
8ComplainantDs previous bill not e/ceeding Rs 6"" ;ssuance of bill of Rs -291 held to be e/cessive and 6uashed -
1996#1$ CPC %%1 Ra.
8ComplainantDs telephone disconnected for non pa!ment of fatherDs telephone * =P directed to pa! compensation
of Rs 21%"" for deficienc! in service - 2""-#1$ CPC %"% ?ttranchal
8ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for two !ears * No action ta@en on complaint * Charging rent for period
when telephone remained dead is un.ustified - 2""3#2$ CPC 266 NC
8ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order for 9 months * Refund of billed amount .ustified along with
compensation of Rs 1"1""" - 1993 CPC 633 'r
8Complainants telephone remained disconnected for a long period * :/cessive amount of bill ordered to be
refunded with interest - 2"""#2$ CPC 166 Chd
8Complaint against e/cessive telephone bill dismissed * Review under CP Act not maintainable - S!resh hai v
&atna Tele+hones, 2""3#2$ CPC %,% NC
8Complaint regarding e/cessive bill onl! * No metering defect or misuse of line alleged * )epartment not liable for
negligence - 1996#2$ CPC 2%2 NC
8Complaint regarding relief in bill alread! dismissed * No relief can be given as the bill had become final * 199,#1$
CPC 396 Chd
8Concession on the basis of ma/imum number of calls in a preceding period1 not permissible - 1992 CPC 631 'r
8Correctness of bill cannot be doubted b! mere suspicion unless there is cogent evidence to prove the fact - 1993
CPC 3%9 NC
--)epartment did not pa! heed to complaints about illegal bills * Giolation of circular dated 9-1946 b! )epartment
proved - 1999#1$ CPC 3-2 Chd
8)epartment failed to ad.ust e/cess amount in ne/t bill as agreed * )isconnection of phone for nonpa!ment of
wrong bill constituted a deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC --, Pondicherr!
8)epartment failed to hold in6uir! in telephone bill as assured * Relief granted b! )istrict 0orum .ustified -
1994#2$ CPC -44 Chd
8)epartment issued e/cessive bill of Rs 111"-9 without .ustification * 2ill ordered to be 6uashed - 1999#1$ CPC
-%9 Chd
21
8)epartment should prove that metering e6uipment is not defective when there is sudden spurt in telephone calls -
1996#2$ CPC 9, NC
8)epartment was charging bill for telephone dead for the last 6 !ears * (elephone was sealed b! C2; * )epartment
directed to pa! Rs 2%1""" as compensation - 1999#2$ CPC %32 Pb
8)ifference in allegations made before the +tate Commission and National Commission about inflated bills * Relief
denied to appellant - 1993 CPC -%6 NC
8)irections for sending telephone bill through registered posts cannot be given under +ection 1- of the Consumer
Protection Act - 1993 CPC -%% NC
8)isconnection of fatherDs telephone on account of non*pa!ment of bill of sonDs mobile phone is illegal * 2""%#2$
CPC 399 Pb
8)isconnection of telephone for default in pa!ment of bill b! other subscribers is illegal * 2""%#1$ CPC -9, )elhi
8)isconnection of telephone for non pa!ment of arrears not shown in latest bill * )eficienc! in service not proved -
199-#2$ CPC -26 NC
8)isconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of e/cessive bill1 without in6uir! is not legall! valid - 1994#1$ CPC
1,3 Pb
8)isputed bills much higher than earlier bills * Rebate in bill allowed - 1994#1$ CPC %36 Chd
8)istrict 0orum arrived at the average of -"" calls against 2"" calls per month which were found to be genuine *
=rder of )istrict 0orum modified to that e/tent - 2""1#1$ CPC 2, )elhi
**)istrict 0orum granted relief in telephone bill as it was found to be e/cessive > Contention of =P that complaint
was time barred not proved from record > =rder upheld 2""9#2$ CPC 3," NC
8)istrict 0orum passed the order under a wrong impression that telephone had been restored * Restoration of
telephone and rectification of bill ordered in appeal - 199,#1$ CPC 39" Chd
--:arlier bill not included in the latest bill which was cleared * )isconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of
earlier bill constitutes a deficient service - 1994#1$ CPC -%- Pb
8:arlier bills comparativel! of smaller amount * 2ill in 6uestion cannot be challenged on this ground alone -
1994#2$ CPC -4- Chd
8:/cess amount recovered from consumer * =pposite Part! directed to refund the amount with compensation of
Rs 21""" * 2""-#2$ CPC -91 Chd
8:/cessive bill based upon sudden spurt in number of calls * )epartment directed to prepare fresh bills * 2"""#1$
CPC 63- )elhi
8:/cessive bill being based upon defective meter can not be sustained *1996#2$ CPC 36- 'r
8:/cessive bill due to defect in metering e6uipment or change of telephone number without notice cannot be
sustained - 199%#2$ CPC 399 'r
8:/cessive bill due to mechanical fault of e/change issued * )isputed bill 6uashed with the direction to issue fresh
bill on average basis - 2""3#1$ CPC 22- 9P
8:/cessive bill due to metering defect * Complainant held entitled to relief - 199,#1$ CPC 24% 'r
8:/cessive bill due to sudden spurt and misuser of telephone * 2ill to based on ma/imum bill for preceding period
- 2"""#1$ CPC 144 Chd
8:/cessive bill due to sudden spurt issued in violation of ;nstructions * Complainant held entitled to compensation
of Rs 1"1""" and refund of e/cess amount * 2""%#1$ CPC %%" NC
8:/cessive bill given without reason * No action on repeated complaint * Giolation of instruction -3- C -3% of
9anual * Relief granted - 2""3#2$ CPC %"9 ?P
8:/cessive bill issued after + ( ) was disconnected * 9isuse of phone b! emplo!ees * Amount of bill should be
recovered from erring emplo!ees1 not from subscriber * 1994#1$ CPC 36% Pb
8:/cessive bill issued to complainant * +pecific allegations of fault in meter and mischief b! emplo!ees alleged *
=rder directing refund of e/cess amount .ustified - 2"""#2$ CPC 3-9 Chd
8:/cessive bill issued to subscriber * 9isuse of phone b! emplo!ees proved * Complainant held entitled to
compensation of Rs 1%1""" with restoration of connection - 199,#2$ CPC 299 Pb
**:/cessive bill issued to the complainant > 2ill prepared without adopting proper procedure > 2ill 6uashed b! 0ora
below > =rders upheld > 2"1"#1$ CPC 126 NC
8:/cessive bill was due to defect in e6uipment * Relief rightl! granted to complainant * Plea of average basis not
available to )epartment - 199%#2$ CPC 34, 'r
8:/cessive bill was given to complainant * Complainant not liable to pa! the bill - 1992 CPC ,% Ra.
--:/cessive bills given to complainant b! (elephone )epartment * Complainant held entitled to relief - 199%#1$
CPC 63, Ra.
22
8:/cessive telephone bill due to defect in metering e6uipment and misuse b! official * Reduction in bill allowed -
199,#1$ CPC 3, Chd
8:/cessive telephone bill due to defective metering * Complainant held entitled to relief of reduced bill - 199%#1$
CPC 364 'r
8:/cessive telephone bill issued in violation of departmental circular * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in
service - 2""2#1$ CPC %,% ?P
8:/cessive telephone bill issued on the basis of sudden spurt in clause * Reduction in bill .ustified - 2"""#2$ CPC
266 )elhi
8:/cessive (elephone bill of Rs 3,1229 issued without solid reason * )emand set aside with compensation of Rs
2"1""" b! +tate Commission - 2""2#1$ CPC 624 NC
8'eav! 2ill received b! complainant * Complainant rightl! compensated b! the )istrict 0orum - 1992 CPC -"1
'r
8'uge bill for a period when telephone remained dead cannot be sustained - 2""3#2$ CPC 6%" Assam
8;mpracticable calls for long duration shown in bill * ;nflated bill of Rs 3212%9 rightl! reduced to Rs 61""" -
1994#2$ CPC 221 Chd
8;n the absence of plea of misuser or defect in meter1 change in telephone bill not proper * 2""-#2$ CPC 2%3
?ttaranchal
8;nflated bill being issued even after disconnection of telephone * No action on complaints * )epartment directed to
pa! Rs 2%1""" as compensation and to restore the connection - 199,#2$ CPC -36 Pb
8;nflated bill issued * +() not used b! complainant * )efect not removed * ;nflated bill rightl! waived off -
2""-#1$ CPC 399 ?ttranchal
8;nflated bill issued without .ust cause * )isconnection of phone for non*pa!ment is illegal - 2""3#2$ CPC 1", Pb
8;ssuance of a provisional bill is not an admission of fault! metering b! the )epartment - 199-#1$ CPC -4 'r
8;ssuance of enhanced telephone bill for the period when telephone was out of order is un.ustified and liable to be
6uashed * 2""4#2$ CPC 646 'P
8;ssuance of telephone bill even without giving the connection is obviousl! illegal - 2""3#1$ CPC 16- Pb
--;ssuance of telephone bill for the period when telephone remained dead is illegal - 2""2#1$ CPC 64" ?P
8;t is not the dut! of the subscriber to approach the :/change to find out the amount of bill when bill is not sent to
him - 199%#2$ CPC --4 NC
89atter relating to e/cessive telephone bill should be referred to Arbitration under +ec ,*2 of (elegraph Act -
199,#2$ CPC -,, NC
89ere increase of 2"F in an average number of calls is not sufficient to get a relief unless a fault of meter or
emplo!ees is proved - 1992 CPC %32 'r
89erel! that 6uestion of title relating to telephone bill is involved in complaint * )epartment cannot be made to
suffer - 1999#1$ CPC 3%- Pb
89eter found to be defective * Rebate in bill on average basis is .ustified - 1996#1$ CPC -1, 'r
89isuse of telephone b! )epartment emplo!ees * Complainant to be given relief after holding necessar! in6uir! -
199,#1$ CPC 631 Pb
89isuse of telephone b! )epartment emplo!ees presumed from facts of the case * Refund of e/cess amount with
14F interest allowed - 1994#2$ CPC -% 9P
89isuse of telephone b! other person or defect in meter not proved * Release of bill on average basis set aside -
2""-#1$ CPC 2", ?ttaran
8New officer using telephone of shifted officer * 'eld liable to pa! the bill of old telephone even when new
telephone was shifted after one !ear of his ta@ing of charge - 1992 CPC 633 NC
8New tenant cannot be compelled to deposit earlier bill before releasing telephone connection in his name -
2""-#1$ CPC 221 ?ttaran
8No allegation of misuser or tempering with telephone alleged in complaint * Reduction in inflated bill disallowed
- 1999#2$ CPC 2,4 2ihar
8No attention was paid to complaint filed with department relating to e/cessive telephone bill * )epartment held
liable for violating telephone department instructions * 2""2#1$ CPC %49 ?P
8No e/planation given b! )epartment for sudden rise in bill * Relief granted to subscriber - 199,#1$ CPC 3,6 Chd
--No e/planation given for issuing additional telephone bill * 2ill alread! paid * ;ssuance of additional bill
un.ustified - 1999#1$ CPC -3 Chd
23
8No finding regarding defect in metering e6uipment or misuse of telephone b! others * Relief declined to the
complainant - 199-#2$ CPC -14 NC
8No instrument with )istrict 0orum to determine e/cessive bill * Case referred to Arbitrator under +ection ,*2 of
the (elegraph Act - 2""3#2$ CPC 64" 'r
8No metering defect or misuse of telephone found * Nor an! sudden spurt in calls * 2ills on the basis of previous
average calls cannot be reduced - 2""2#1$ CPC 2-% Pb
8No reduction in bill permissible when no evidence has been adduced to that effect b! the complainant - 199-#2$
CPC -"% Pb
8No reduction should be made unless convincing evidence is produced to that effect b! complainant - 1996#1$ CPC
-1- 'r
8No relief against e/cessive bill can be granted unless defect in meter or misuse of telephone b! 3rd part! is proved
- 199%#2$ CPC 22 Ra.
8No relief can be given unless defect in meter or fault of )epartment is proved - 1993 CPC %64 Pb
**Non furnishing of details of telephone bill > Proper remed! is to refer the matter for arbitration * 2"1"#3$ CPC 112
<2
8Non restoration of telephone connection despite pa!ment of telephone dues * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 3"""
as compensation - 2""1#1$ CPC %23 )elhi
8Number of telephone calls cannot be fi/ed on the basis of average calls made during the previous period - 199-#2$
CPC -1" Pb
8=nce in a subse6uent bill arrears are not mentioned1 it would be deemed that there are no arrears * 2"",#1$ CPC
%%" Pb
**=ver charging > Complaint dismissed b! 0orum > 3aw laid down b! the Ape/ Court in 9 &rishnanDs
case 2""9#3$ CPC 2-6 +C the 0oras under Consumer Protection Act have no .urisdiction to ad.udicate upon
such matter > 2"11#1$ CPC 1,3 Chd
8Point about telephone bill not raised before )istrict 0orum cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal - 1994#1$ CPC
-,9 9P
8Present bills e/tremel! on higher side than earlier bills * )epartment directed to ad.ust the e/cess amount- 1994#1$
CPC 166 Chd
8Previous bills not to be made basis in the conte/t of a telephone with +() facilit! - 199-#1$ CPC 6"9 'r
8Principle of an average basis where +() facilit! is being en.o!ed1 cannot be accepted - 1992 CPC 612 'r
--Provisional arrangement of pa!ment is not a final acceptance of subscriberDs demand for reduction in bill -
1996#1$ CPC 2,2 'r
85uestion of bill being inflated should not be decided merel! on the basis of suspicion or assumption of wrong
mechanism - 1991 CPC -11 NC
8Rebate * (elephone if out of order for more than 1- da!s * Rebate in bill for full month should be given - 2"""#2$
CPC 64 Pb
8Rebate in bill not permissible unless defect in metering or misuse of line is proved - 1994#2$ CPC 1-% Pb
8Rebate in e/cessive bill as metering was found defective * Relief of Rs %1""" in each bill .ustified - 199%#2$ CPC
131 'r
8Reduction in bill on average basis wor@ed out on a single bill not .ustified * 2""1#1$ CPC 66, Chd
8Reduction in bill on the basis of average of previous bills is not proper - 1996#1$ CPC 22- 'r
8Reduction in bill without .ust cause1 when +() facilities are available1 is not .ustified - 1994#2$ CPC -94 Chd
8Reduction in some bills and not in others * ?niform formulae in preparation of bills should be adopted - 1999#1$
CPC 1,% Chd
8Reduction in telephone bill on the basis of average consumption is not .ustified when +() is being availed -
1996#2$ CPC 26- NC
8Reframing of bill on average basis when bill is alleged to be e/cessive is not proper * )ispute referred to arbitrator
for ad.udication - 2""2#2$ CPC 3" Chd
8+() * Relief demanded regarding inflated telephone bills * Award of compensation for dela! in disconnection of
+() is without .urisdiction - 199,#1$ CPC 93 NC
8+() facilities provided without demand and notice * Complainant consumer not liable to pa! bills based upon
+() calls - 1996#2$ CPC 61" 'r
8+() facilit! were given b! mista@e * Complainant cannot be burdened with e/cessive bills unnecessaril! -
1996#1$ CPC -,4 Au.
2-
8+ubscriber is not liable to pa! telephone rental for the period when telephone remained effective - 1994#1$ CPC
666 Pb
8+ubscriber not bound to inform the )epartment about deposit of bill - 1994#1$ CPC 3", Pb
--+ubscriber not liable to pa! bill for the period when telephone remained unutilised - 199,#1$ CPC 3,9 Chd
8+ubscribers cannot be made to pa! the e/cessive bills -1992 CPC 2%- 'P
8+udden spurt in billing * No e/planation for % times increase in number of calls * Complainant held entitled to
relief - 199%#1$ CPC 1"3 Au.
8+udden spurt in calls * No official deputed to in6uire in the matter * 2ill being e/cessive set aside * 2""-#2$ CPC
2-" Pb
8+udden spurt in number of calls * No investigation made b! )epartment * Revised bills to be issued on average
basis - 1994#1$ CPC 3-9 )elhi
8+udden spurt in telephone bill * No action ta@en b! )eptt as per instructions * Complainant held entitled to relief
in e/cessive bills - 199,#2$ CPC -%6 Pb
8+udden spurt in telephone bill * Reduction in bill allowed * 9atter need not be referred to Arbitrator - 1999#1$
CPC 2," 'P
8+udden spurt in telephone bill from hundreds to thousands * Reduction in bill must be allowed - 1994#1$ CPC 23-
Pb
8+udden spurt in telephone call * Complainant held entitled to reduction in bill in view of government instruction
vide order No -*%974%*(R - 2""2#2$ CPC -22 NC
8+udden spurt in telephone calls resulting in huge bills * Case remanded to be decided in compliance of 1946
instructions * 2""4#1$ CPC %"6 'P
8(elephone authorit! has no power to issue revised bill on the basis of average bills - 2"""#2$ CPC 3"4 Assam
8(elephone bill alleged to be e/cessive 6uashed without full investigation * 5uashing of bill illegal * 1994#2$ CPC
3%, NC
**(elephone bill raised as per census report in urban areas and rural areas > (here is no illegalit! in raising the
impugned bill > Relief declined 2""9#2$ CPC 139 NC
**(elephone bills generated onl! for rental due to technical snag in computer which was not disclosed b!
the complainant deliberatel! > 5uashing of bill un.ustified but complainant allowed to deposit bill in si/
monthl! installments > 2""9#3$ CPC 22% NC
**<rong telephone number mentioned on receipt when pa!ment of bill was made b! the complainant > =P
rightl! held liable for deficienc! in service > =rder upheld > 2""9#3$ CPC 142 Ra.
8(elephone bill arose from Rs321""" to one la@h in two months due to sudden spurt in call * =P liable for
deficienc! in service * 2"",#1$ CPC 344 NC
8(elephone bill based upon technical report and print out with using of +() facilit! * 2ill cannot be held to be
e/cessive - 2""2#1$ CPC ,4 NC
8(elephone bill found to be inflated one * Rebate in bill and 1"F interest on securit! amount .ustified - 1993 CPC
,32 Pb
--(elephone bill ordered to be revised on average basis b! non spea@ing order * =rder not sustainable - 1994#1$ CPC
-4, ?P
8(elephone billing on the basis of average of preceding bills is not .ustified - 1996#1$ CPC 143 NC
8(elephone )epartment is not e/pected to give inflated bill * Rise in bill more than ,%F in average bill is deemed
to be inflated one *1992 CPC 26" BC&
8(elephone department not in6uiring about bro@en meter and giving inflated bill * 'eld liable for deficienc! in
service - 2""2#2$ CPC 11 ?P
8(elephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill of another person * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 21""" for
committing act of negligence - 1994#2$ CPC -93 Pb
8(elephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of two e/cessive bills which were reduced b! Arbitrator charging of bill
for intervening period after disconnection amounts to a deficient service - 1994#1$ CPC 6%6 Pb
8(elephone disconnection for non pa!ment of bill * )epartment not at fault due to alleged non issuance of bill * ;t
is the dut! of consumer to in6uire about reason for non issuance of bill * 2""4#1$ CPC 63% Pb
8(elephone left in )epartment custod! b! complainant * 9isuser b! emplo!ees * 2ill of Rs -"1216 issued to
subscriber 6uashed with compensation of Rs %1""" - 1999#2$ CPC 21 Chd
2%
8(elephone meter showing spurt and running at e/cessive speed * +ubscriber held entitled to relief - 1993 CPC 236
Pb
8(elephone official refusing to accept bill without reason * )irected to pa! Rs -1""" as compensation - 2""3#1$
CPC 24% Pb
8(elephone provided with +() facilit! * 2ill found not e/cessive in in6uir! * Relief declined - 2""-#1$ CPC 34,
?ttranchal
8(here is no illegalit! in realising rent for a period during which telephone remained disconnected as laid down in
rule 169 of P C ( 9anual - 2"""#2$ CPC %,% =rissa
8(ime of 3 da!s for depositing amount b! PC= is ver! short * (ime should be at least , da!s - 199-#2$ CPC 146
Assam
8?ndue spurt in reading due to telephone meter being defective * Rebate to consumer in bill .ustified - 199%#2$
CPC 6" 'r
8<hen there is sudden spurt and e/cessive billing telephone authorities must ta@e action in accordance with
guidelines of )epartmental ;nstruction dt 9-1946 to remove the defect - 2""2#1$ CPC -%% Pb
--<here the )epartment discovered that the complainant had been underbilled it was .ustified to send additional bill
to the subscriber7complainant - 1991 CPC 2-1 )elhi
8<rong billing disputes fall within the purview of +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act and should be referred to e/pert1
for proper decision - 1991 CPC -6% <2
Telephone bill on average basis - )irection to issue telephone bill on average basis is without .urisdiction
- 2""2#1$ CPC %,% ?P
Telephone cables - +ervice * )igging up of roads for la!ing of telephone cables1 is not a part of service hired
b! telephone consumers - 1992 CPC %,2 NC
Telephone calls - A bill of Rs 114,4 for local calls from telephone of a +enior law!er with several .uniors and
famil! members cannot be said to be e/cessive * 2ill on average basis declined - 1999#1$ CPC 6"4 Chd
8Complainant having no relatives where fre6uent calls were made * Calls made b! third persons can be presumed *
Rebates in bills allowed - 2""2#2$ CPC 3%" Chd
80ree number of calls and charges therefor cannot be estimated b! the Redressal 0orums under the Act - 1991 CPC
33 NC
8;mpracticable calls for long duration shown in bill * ;nflated bill of Rs 3212%9 rightl! reduced to Rs 61""" -
1994#2$ CPC 221 Chd
8(elephone calls were made when telephone was @ept in safe custod! of )epartment * 2ill of Rs 261 1", issued
for custod! period amounts to a grave deficienc! in service - 1999#2$ CPC -1- Pb
Telephone charges - A telephone subscriber is liable to pa! rent1 arrears of rent installation fees in addition to
telephone bill - 1999#1$ CPC -%9 Chd
8+() facilit! also includes ;+) facilit! * Consumer bound to pa! for using ;+) number - 2""2#1$ CPC 13-
)elhi
8+ubscriber cannot be made to pa! for the period when telephone remained disconnected - 1994#2$ CPC 1-% Pb
8(elephone authorities are .ustified to recover charges even for the period of disconnection under Rule --3 of
(elephone Rules - 1996#1$ CPC 2,1 'r
Telephone complaints - )epartment is guilt! of deficienc! in service for not ta@ing an! action on complaints
of subscriber - 199,#2$ CPC -36 Pb
8Complainant having telephone of Railwa! )eptt at his house in official capacit! * Complaint filed b! him
personal capacit! not maintainable * 2""6#1$ CPC 14" 'r
Telephone connection - An applicant cannot insist that a telephone connection should be released from a
particular e/change * ;t is for the department to see the feasibilit! while giving a connection * 2""6#1$ CPC ,24 Pb
**Compensation pa!able to subscriber due to fault of (elephone emplo!ees should be recovered from them - 199,#2$
CPC 299 Pb
8Complainant deposited Rs =ne thousand1 demand notice received but no connection was given * )eficienc!
proved - 1993 CPC 19 Pb
8Complainant pleaded point of per.ur! against =P in addition to defect in telephone * Consumer .urisdiction not
barred * Case under sections 19% and 3-" CrPC can also be tried under CP Act - 2""3#1$ CPC 1-3 Pb
8Complainant suffered loss due to non*release of telephone connection * )emand of Rs 231""" as compensation
un.ust * 9oderate amount of Rs 2%"" awarded * 2""3#1$ CPC 2-, Chd
26
8Complainant suffered loss due to violation of seniorit! list of applicants for telephone connection * 'eld1 entitled
to compensation of Rs 2"1""" - 1992 CPC 21% 'r
8Connection wrongfull! denied to complainant7 Advocate having 9 !ears standing practice * Plea of non feasibilit!
not proved * =P directed to give connection with cost of Rs 1"1""" * 2""3#1$ CPC 1%% Pb
8)ela! in releasing telephone connection due to reason be!ond departmentDs control * )eficienc! in service not
proved - 2""-#1$ CPC 6"3 (N
8)ela! of 1" months in installing connection after sanction without satisfactor! e/planation for dela! *
Complainant entitled to Rs %1""" as compensation - 199,#2$ CPC -2" Chd
8)ela! of 11 months in giving telephone connection after issuance of advice note * )epartment directed to pa! Rs
%1""" as compensation for dela! - 2"""#2$ CPC 616 Chd
8)ela! of 3 !ears in giving telephone connection under =E( +cheme on technical grounds * Complainant
entitled to Rs 1"1""" as compensation - 199%#2$ CPC ,6 NC
8)ela! of 4 months in giving telephone connection to complainant1 Advocate without reasons * )epartment
directed to pa! a sum of Rs 41""" as compensation and cost - 2""1#2$ CPC 329 Chd
8)ela! of 4 !ears in giving telephone connection * Complainant awarded Rs %,%" as compensation and cost -
2""3#2$ CPC 66" ?ttran
8)ela! of a decade in giving telephone connection * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in service * 199,#1$ CPC
2,9 'r
--)ela! of more than one month for releasing telephone connection after its sanction amounts to deficient service
*Compensation of Rs 121""" .ustified - 1999#1$ CPC 161 Pb
8)ela! of one !ear in telephone connection which was to be released within , da!s as per instructions * =P
directed to give connection with compensation7cost of Rs 1"1""" - 2""3#1$ CPC 6-% Chd
8)ela! of si/ months in installation of telephone under =E( +cheme * )epartment directed to pa! a sum of Rs
2%1""" as compensation - 2"""#2$ CPC 26% Chd
8)irections to give telephone connection cannot be given under the Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 323 NC
8)isconnection of telephone without notice is illegal - 199-#2$ CPC 361 <2engal
8)ues outstanding against telephone in the premises where new connection was re6uired * )enial of fresh
connection is .ustified as per rules - 2""-#1$ CPC 2-% Bhar@hand 'C
8:lectric connection given to tubewell in .oint land of A and 2 * 3and came in sole ownership of A *
)isconnection of electricit! not permissible - 2""3#1$ CPC 1%" Pb
8New telephone connection dela!ed without valid e/cuse * +eniorit! list violated * )epartment directed to pa! Rs
3""" with interest - 2""1#1$ CPC 364 (N
8Non installation of telephone b! 9(N3 after receiving necessar! amount * Compensation of Rs 31""" is .ustified
for committing unfair trade practice - 2"""#1$ CPC %% )elhi
8+)= not impleaded as part! * 'olding him personall! liable for deficienc! in service is not legall! valid -
2""2#1$ CPC 9- Pb
8+() facilities provided against demand of complainant * )isconnection for non*pa!ment of huge bill is illegal -
1994#1$ CPC 36" 'r
8+eniorit! list violated in giving telephone connection * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in service - 199,#2$
CPC 1, (N
8+eriatum seniorit! overridden without an! rationale * )epartment directed to release connection within a wee@ -
1992 CPC %-6 'r
8+pecial categor! * )epartment dela!ing release of connection under +pecial categor! b! demanding cop! of
332 degree of complainant * 'eld liable for deficienc! in service - 1994#2$ CPC %,% Pb
**Consumer agencies have no .urisdiction in the matter of disconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of bill >
9atter should be decided b! Arbitrator u7s ,2 of the (elegraph Act > 2""9#3$ CPC 2-6 +C
**;t was not possible to release connection at earl! stage as stated b! letter written b! B(= #A$ > )ela! does not
amount to a deficienc! in service > 2""9#1$ CPC %-1 Pb
**9ere providing connection to other resident does not confer a right on the complainant for installation of his
telephone when it is not ph!sicall! violable > 2""9#2$ CPC -,, ?P
8(emporar! connection after charging Rs 4"" on temporar! basis * )emand of installation charges for e/tending
the connection again is illegal - 2"""#1$ CPC --1 AP
--?ndue dela! in giving connection to a freedom*fighter * Connection to be released with compensation of Rs 11"""
with 12F interest - 1994#2$ CPC 29" 'r
2,
8?ndue dela! in installation of telephone applied under ++ categor! * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 1"1""" with
12F interest as compensation - 2"""#2$ CPC 169 Chd
8?ndue dela! of 2 !ears in giving telephone connection without reason =P directed to pa! compensation and
costs of 2""" to complaint - 2""2#1$ CPC 23- Pb
8?ndue dela! of !ears in giving telephone connection ignoring the seniorit! of consumer constitutes a deficienc! in
service - 1994#1$ CPC 663 Pb
Telephone defect * ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for most of the time * )efect not removed despite
repeated re6uests * Complainant entitled to Rs %"1""" as compensation - 2""1#2$ CPC 19- ?P
8ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for most of the time * +everal complaints did not wor@ * )epartment
directed to pa! Rs %%"" as compensation - 2"""#1$ CPC %1, Pb
8ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order for 1% da!s causing loss in legal profession * )eptt directed to
pa! compensation and costs of Rs %%"" - 2"""#1$ CPC %22 )elhi
8ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order for long time * )efect not removed * )eficienc! in service proved
- 2""1#1$ CPC 2,4 'r
8Complaint b! father 6ua fault in telephone owned b! his son is maintainable under CP Act - 2"""#2$ CPC 92 Pb
8Complaint regarding telephone defect remained unattended for long * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in
service - 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
8ComplaintDs telephone remained dead about one and half month despite complaints * +um of Rs %""" awarded to
complainant - 1996#2$ CPC 111 )elhi
8)efect in (elephone of wife * 'usband1 being a beneficiar! is competent to file a complaint * 2"""#1$ CPC 142
Pb
provide telephone instrument of good standard - 2""3#1$ CPC 1,2 Pb
8)efect of telephone on - occasions * Repair was done in two cases on ver! same da! * No case of deficienc! in
service is made out against =P * 2"",#1$ CPC 2%1 NC
8)ela! of 1" da!s in removal of defect * 0ault due to underground wire not proved * )ela! amounts to deficienc!
in service - 1994#2$ CPC 143 Pb
--)ela! of ten da!s in removal of default after lodging of complaint * )epartment liable for deficienc! in service -
1996#2$ CPC 1"% )elhi
8)epartment cannot escape its dut! to remove telephone defect on the plea that fault was caused b! lightening *
Complainant allowed Rs 1%"" as compensation - 2"""#2$ CPC 329 &er
8)epartment failed to remove defect in telephone despite lodging of complaint * 'eld liable for deficienc! in
service - 2"""#2$ CPC 263 (N
8No attention paid to complainant regarding non functioning of telephone * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 31"""
as compensation to complainant - 2"""#1$ CPC -26 (N
8(elephone defect not removed within a reasonable time * )epartment directed pa! Rs 11%"" as compensation -
1994#1$ CPC 6%9 Pb
8(elephone )epartment failed to rectif! the defect in telephone till complaint was filed * )eficienc! in service
stands proved - 2"""#2$ CPC 2-4 Pondicherr!
8(elephone not set right for more than 1- da!s * )epartment directed to give one month rebate in bill with Rs
1%"" as compensation - 2"""#2$ CPC 64 Pb
8(elephone of complainant1 Advocate1 remained dead for about 2" da!s * Compensation of Rs 11%"" for
deficienc! in service held to be moderate - 2""1#2$ CPC 223 =rissa
8(elephone remained dead for about 21 da!s within a month * )epartment directed to pa! a total sum of Rs 3%""
as compensation * 2"""#1$ CPC %14 Pb
8(elephone remained non*functional for 2- da!s * =P awarded Rs 1"1""" compensation * 2""%#1$ CPC 16-
)elhi
8(elephone remained out of order for , da!s due to negligence of emplo!ees * Complainant entitled to
compensation - 1994#2$ CPC --1 Pb
8(he telephone installed at complainantDs house remained dead for most of the da!s causing loss to old man of 9"
!ears * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 3""" as compensation * 2"""#1$ CPC %13 Pb
8(wo telephones of complainant admittedl! remained out of order for 6, and %, da!s * Awarding of Rs %1""" as
compensation .ustified* 2"""#2$ CPC 299 )elhi
Telephone Directory - ComplainantDs name omitted from (elephone )irector * )epartment directed to pa!
Rs 1"" to complainant1 for negligence - 1991 CPC %94 (N
24
--ComplainantDs telephone Number not shown in director! * Non rectification without dela! amounts to deficienc!
in service * Rs 1%1""" awarded as compensation to complainant - 2"""#1$ CPC -2- AP
8)eposit of old telephone director! should not be a condition president to suppl! new telephone director! *
Production of bill of preceding month is sufficient -199%#2$ CPC 3,9 <2engal
8:arlier telephone connection was restored without an! compensation * +ubse6uent compensation awarded for non
inclusion of complainantDs name in director! not .ustified - 2""2#2$ CPC 346 <2engal
89ista@es committed in printing of telephone director! * Complaint is maintainable against the )epartment -
199%#2$ CPC 3,9 <2engal
8Non*publication of (elephone )irector! in time * Amounts to deficienc! in service - 1992 CPC ,36 'r
8(elecom )epartment cannot held liable to compensate the subscriber for dela! in publication of (elephone
)irector! - 199-#1$ CPC 1"9 NC
8(elephone authorit! cannot be held liable for omission of name and number under CP Act in view of Rule -%, of
(elegraph Rules - 2""2#1$ CPC 224 <2engal
8(elephone director! is supplied free of cost * 9atter does not come under the definition of service under the Act -
2""1#1$ CPC 6-6 )elhi
Telephone disconnection - A subscriber having +() onl! cannot be made to pa! for ;+) bill *
)isconnection for non pa!ment of bill constitutes a deficienc! in service - 1999#2$ CPC ,6 Pb
**Awarding of heav! compensation of Rs 11%"1""" in telephone disconnection1 case held to be un.ust - 199-#2$ CPC
%4, NC
82ill not paid for one of 3 telephones of same person * )isconnection of other 2 telephones is .ustified under Rule
--3 of (elephone Rules - 1999#1$ CPC %41 NC
8Complainant depositing half of the amount of arrears * 'eld1 entitled to restoration connection - 1991 CPC %91
Assam
8Complainant failed to pa! bill despite several opportunities to pa! in instalments * Rule --3 violated *
)isconnection .ustified - 2""-#1$ CPC 2,% Pb
8ComplainantDs telephone disconnected despite pa!ment of bill in time * =P directed to pa! Rs -1""" for
negligence * 2""-#2$ CPC 6- 2ihar
--ComplainantDs telephone disconnected despite pa!ment of telephone bill * Restoration dela!ed * Respondent
directed to pa! Rs %"" as compensation - 2""-#1$ CPC 136 )elhi
8ComplainantDs telephone disconnected on civil court direction for possession of suit propert! * (elephone
department not guilt! for deficienc! in service * 2""%#2$ CPC 11- Pondicherr!
8ComplainantDs telephone remained dead for two !ears * No action ta@en on complaint * Charging rent for period
when telephone remained dead is un.ustified - 2""3#2$ CPC 266 NC
8ComplainantDs telephone remained disconnected for % months * 'eld1 entitled to compensation for suffering loss -
1993 CPC 122 Pb
8ComplainantDs telephone remained disconnected for two months * Respondent directed to restore connection with
compensation of Rs 21""" - 1991 CPC -9- Ra.
8ComplainantDs telephone was disconnected despite the deposit of bill * )epartment directed to pa! Rs %""" for
negligence - 1994#1$ CPC 3", Pb
8Connection of telephone was not restored despite pa!ment made according to award of arbitrator * =P )irector!
to pa! compensation and cost of Rs 121%"" * 2""6#2$ CPC 224 NC
8)efault in pa!ment b! husband in his own bill * )isconnection of telephone of wife is illegal * Amounts to
deficient service - 1999#2$ CPC 329 9P
8)epartment due to non communication of information about deposit of bill1 disconnected the telephone * Not
liable for deficient service - 1996#2$ CPC %22 Pb
8)epartment failed to ad.ust e/cess amount in ne/t bill as agreed * )isconnection of phone for nonpa!ment of
wrong bill constituted a deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC --, Pondicherr!
8)isconnection for non*pa!ment for telephone bill1 without notice is valid onl! when the bill is not e/cessive *
)isconnection for non*pa!ment of illegal bill is a deficienc! in service - 1994#1$ CPC 6%6 Pb
8)isconnection of fatherDs telephone on account of non*pa!ment of bill of sonDs mobile phone is illegal * 2""%#2$
CPC 399 Pb
8)isconnection of phone after pa!ment of bill * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 11""" as compensation - 199,#2$
CPC 1% &er
29
--)isconnection of telephone after pa!ment of bill without verification amounts to deficient service * Rs 61"""
awarded to subscriber - 1994#1$ CPC 612 Pb
8)isconnection of telephone despite deposit of bill within time * =P is liable to compensate complainant *
2""-#2$ CPC 316 < 2engal
**(elephone connection disconnected before due date of pa!ment > =P directed to pa! compensation and cost of
Rs ,1""" to the complainant > 2""9#1$ CPC %,9 Chhattisgarh
8)isconnection of telephone despite pa!ment of bill * )epartment liable for deficienc! in service * 2ut
compensation reduced from %""" to 1""" onl! - 2""2#1$ CPC -11 'r
8)isconnection of telephone despite pa!ment of bill * +ubscriber must be compensated b! telephone department -
2""1#2$ CPC 293 2ihar
8)isconnection of telephone despite pa!ment of bill in time constitutes a deficienc! in service on the part of
telephone department - 2"""#2$ CPC 29" )elhi
8)isconnection of telephone despite that no amount was outstanding against complainant * )epartment directed to
allot new connection without charging an! amount and to pa! compensation - 2""2#2$ CPC 16 <2engal
8)isconnection of (elephone for non pa!ment of bill of another (elephone constitutes a deficienc! in service -
2""1#2$ CPC 96 Chd
8)isconnection of telephone for non pa!ment prior to last date of bill amounts to deficienc! in service - 2""1#1$
CPC 1-, =rissa
8)isconnection of telephone man! times without prior notice * )epartment held liable for negligence - 2"""#2$
CPC 166 Chd
8)isconnection of telephone simpl! for non*suppl! of particulars of pa!ment is illegal * 2""-#2$ CPC 33- (N
8)isconnection of telephone without notice is illegal especiall! when made due to non pa!ment of inflated bill -
2""3#2$ CPC 1", Pb
8)isconnection of telephone without sending an! bill is a deficienc! in service *199%#2$ CPC --4 NC
8)isconnection of telephone without verif!ing a receipt of pa!ment * Restoration of connection rightl! ordered *
2""6#1$ CPC 6", (N
8)isconnection of telephone1 without prior notice is illegal - 1993 CPC 6,, 'P
Rule --3 of (elegraph Rules *1994#2$ CPC -2- Pb
83atest bill deposited along with reconnection charges * (elephone )epartment bound to restore the connection-
1994#1$ CPC 3%2 'r
--9atter referred for arbitration under +ection ,*2 of (elegraph Act * (elephone cannot be disconnected for non*
pa!ment of disputed bill till the final decision of Arbitrator - 1994#2$ CPC -9" Pb
89eter found not defective and nor bills proved e/cessive * )isconnection of telephone for non pa!ment of bill
.ustified - 2""2#1$ CPC 64, ?P
89inor relief relating to wrongful disconnection of telephone granted in 2""1 * =rder warrants no interference as
matter is old one * 2"",#1$ CPC 323 Ra.
8No steps ta@en for removal of P2L 2oard after several reminders * )eficienc! in service proved * Compensation
of Rs %1""" .ust and proper * 2""6#1$ CPC 9" <2
8Non pa!ment of bill due to e/cessive bill * (elephone not to be disconnected - 199%#2$ CPC 66 'r
8=P disconnected telephone despite pa!ment of bill1 held liable to pa! Rs %1""" compensation for deficienc! in
service * 2""6#1$ CPC %-1 'P
8Pa!ment of bill paid within reasonable time * )isconnection without verif!ing pa!ment of bill is illegal *
)epartment directed to pa! compensation of Rs 1121" - 2""-#1$ CPC 23" AP
8PC= * <here bill was paid well within time in Post =ffice * )isconnection of telephone was uncalled for and
clearl! amounted to deficienc! in service * 2""4#3$ CPC 226 NC
8Personal telephone of )irector of Compan! cannot be disconnected for non*pa!ment of telephone bill of
Compan! - 2"""#1$ CPC ,3 Pb
8Phone can be disconnected even before due date for pa!ment of bill where bill is overdue for previous bills *
2""6#2$ CPC 3,9 &ar
8Power of disconnection of telephone is a drastic one * +hould be e/ercised as a matter of last resort - 1992 CPC
2,4 'r
8Restoration of connection ordered b! +tate Commission sub.ect to pa!ment of reduced bill * =rder being .ust and
proper was upheld - 199,#1$ CPC 121 NC
3"
8(elephone can be disconnected of a person who stood suret! for another consumer who failed to deposit the bill *
2"",#1$ CPC 3"" NC
8(elephone disconnected for non pa!ment of bill1 due to fault of her tenants * )epartment rightl! disconnected the
phone - 2""1#2$ CPC 1,2 Chd
8(elephone disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill of another person * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 21""" for
committing act of negligence - 1994#2$ CPC -93 Pb
--(elephone disconnected inadvertentl! * )epartment directed to pa! Rs 21%"" as compensation instead of Rs %
lacs - 1999#2$ CPC -3- Pb
8(elephone for residence cannot be disconnected for nonpa!ment of bill of 9ill premises * 1996#2$ CPC 2"6 NC
8(elephone in the name of wife was being used b! husband * )isconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment after the
notice .ustified * 2"",#1$ CPC 3"4 NC
8(elephone of a person cannot be disconnected for default of nonpa!ment committed b! his relative relating to
another telephone - 2"""#1$ CPC %23 AP
8(elephone of a relative of subscriber cannot be disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill - 1999#1$ CPC 1"3 &er
8(elephone of complainant disconnected for non pa!ment of her husbandDs telephone bill * )epartment held liable
for deficienc! in service - 199%#1$ CPC 29" 9aha
8(elephone of wife cannot be disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill b! her husband relating to his separate
telephone - 2"""#2$ CPC 62 Pb
8(elephone provider is entitled to disconnect a phone if bill is not paid in time * 2"",#2$ CPC 2"% Pb
8(elephone remained disconnected for 2% da!s * Compensation of Rs 1 la@h is on higher side * 9atter to be re*
decided * 2""6#1$ CPC 36% NC
8(elephone remained non functional for most of the period * )isconnection for non pa!ment of bill not .ustified -
199,#1$ CPC 61% Pb
8(elephone remained out of order for ," da!s out of five months * (elephone disconnected for non pa!ment of
heav! bill of Rs 3%112, Complainant awarded Rs 2"" as compensation - 1991 CPC 26, NC
8(elephone was disconnected after pa!ment of bill * No prior notice issued * )epartment held liable for deficient
service - 1994#1$ CPC 23, Pb
8(he letter for pa!ment was posted after the date when bill was pa!able * )isconnection for non pa!ment of bill is
illegal - 1996#1$ CPC 214 'r
8(here is no illegalit! in disconnecting the telephone without notice when bill is not paid b! subscriber - 199%#2$
CPC 212 NC
8(hough notice in telephone bill is sufficient before disconnection for non*pa!ment of bill1 fresh notice is
mandator! when telephone is disconnected after long dela! - 1999#2$ CPC 14" Pb
Telephone disputes - )isputes regarding providing or shifting or repairing telephones can be decided b!
Consumer 0orums - 1991 CPC -6% <2
Telephone disruption - )isruption in telephones line continuousl! for 1% da!s as = P directed to follow
instruction and pa! compensation and costs within 1% da!s * 2""-#2$ CPC -9% (N
Telephone dues - Charging of bill for the period prior to the date of giving the telephone connection is illegal *
Refund ordered - 1996#1$ CPC 214 'r
Telephone facility - (elephone is a necessit! these da!s * Not a mere show piece * )epartment made to
compensate the complainant for illegal disconnection of telephone - 1994#1$ CPC 3", Pb
8(elephone is a necessit! these da!s * Award of Rs %1""" for illegal disconnection is not on higher side - 1994#2$
CPC -96 Pb
Telephone in fathers name - A telephone in the name of complainantDs father #deceased$ was
disconnected for non*pa!ment of illegal bill * Complainant rightl! awarded Rs %1""" as compensation *1994#2$ CPC -96
Pb
Telephone installation - )ela! of one !ear in installation of telephone * :rring official to pa! Rs 1"1""" to
complainant - 1994#1$ CPC 6"9 Pb
Telephone )nstructions - )epartment must follow official instructions and hold proper investigation in cases
of e/cessive bills - 2"""#1$ CPC 144 Chd
31
8A telephone1 as per instruction of )epartment is for the use of subscriber and his famil! member * Complaint can
be filed b! a close relative of subscriber - 2"""#1$ CPC 142 Pb
Telephone meter defect - +purt rising in calls due to defect in meter * Reframing of correct bill .ustified -
1994#2$ CPC 134 'r
Telephone misuser - (elephone left in )epartment custod! b! complainant * 9isuser b! emplo!ees * 2ill of
Rs -"1216 issued to subscriber 6uashed with compensation of Rs %1""" - 1999#2$ CPC 21 Chd
Telephone of partner - (elephone of partner can be disconnected for non*pa!ment of bill of partnerDs firm -
1999#1$ CPC 1"3 &er
Telephone of relative - (elephone of a person cannot be disconnected for default of nonpa!ment committed
b! his relative relating to another telephone - 2"""#1$ CPC %23 AP
Telephone rates - (ariff rates are fi/ed under +tatute #(elegraph Act$ * Not open to challenge under CP Act -
1991 CPC 41 NC
Telephone rebate - (elephone remained out of order for - wee@s * Complainant deserves rental rebate for this
period - 2""1#1$ CPC 2, )elhi
Telephone re-connection - ;f a bill is not paid for 6 months1 telephone would be deemed to be closed
permanentl! * Restoration of connection disallowed - 1999#1$ CPC -" (N
Telephone rental charges - 2ill issued for period when telephone has been surrendered * Rental charges for
such period 6uashed - 1994#2$ CPC -33 Pb
Telephone replacement - Considerable dela! in replacement of telephone * Compensation of Rs 22%" held
to be .ust and proper - 2"""#2$ CPC %6% Pondicherr!
Telephone restoration - )ela! of more than 6 months in restoration of connection * ;t is wrong to sa! that
telephone was permanentl! closed - 1994#2$ CPC 23 'r
Telephone rules - )ues outstanding against telephone in the premises where new connection was re6uired *
)enial of fresh connection is .ustified as per rules - 2""-#1$ CPC 2-% Bhar@hand 'C
8Rule --3 does not allow disconnection of private phone for non pa!ment of official phone bill of a consumer -
2""3#1$ CPC -46 Chd
8Rule --3 of (elephone Rules cannot protect the telephone emplo!ees committing fault of illegal disconnection of
telephone - 1994#1$ CPC 3", Pb
Telephone security - Refund of securit! deposit is permissible onl! when the telephone is to be finall! closed
- 199,#2$ CPC 33" NC
8(elephone )epartment retained securit! amount for 9 months after disconnection of telephone * 'eld liable to pa!
interest H 12F PA on deposit - 199,#1$ CPC 144 Pb
8+ecurit! deposit demanded from complainant against +enior CitiIen +cheme which were included in the bill *
=pposite Part! directed to issue fresh bill without demanding securit! deposit * 2""-#2$ CPC 2%- < 2engal
Telephone service - A holder of +()7PC= is a licensee of (elephone )epartment * 'e is not a consumer
under the Act - 1999#1$ CPC 9" 'P
8An emplo!ee of ;nsurance Compan! availing telephone connection standing in name of compan! is a beneficiar!
of telephone * 'eld entitled to file a complaint * 2"""#2$ CPC 32" Pondicherr!
--Compensation awarded without an! cogent evidence on loss suffered b! Complainant * ;mpugned order 6uashed -
199,#2$ CPC 2%% NC
8ComplainantDs telephone remained out of order at his residence and business place * Compensation of Rs 1 lac
being on higher side reduced to Rs 1%"" onl! - 2""3#1$ CPC 3" NC
8)ela! of 16*1, da!s in shifting telephone connection is not unreasonable to constitute a deficienc! in service -
1999#1$ CPC 291 (N
8)istrict 0orum wrongl! awarded compensation on amended allegation regarding restoration of telephone
connection * =rder set aside - 2"""#2$ CPC 32- ?P
8;nordinate dela! b! )epartment in reopening a loc@ +() )!namic Code * )epartment is guilt! of deficienc! in
service - 199,#1$ CPC -2- NC
8Non transfer of telephone to other cit! despite deposit of amount * =P liable for deficienc! in service * 2""-#2$
CPC -," Ra.
8=P could not fi/ identit! of caller of malicious call due to short duration of call cannot be held liable for
deficienc! in service * 2""-#2$ CPC -64 ( N
32
8Reduction in compensation due to negligence of (elephone )epartment1 b! +tate Commission * Not correct when
order of )istrict 0orum is .ust and proper - 2""3#1$ CPC 11- NC
8(elephone )epartment is bound to ensure in uninterrupted and regular telephone service to the consumer -
2"""#1$ CPC 6-" Aoa
8(elephone remained dead for 16 da!s * )epartment must compensate subscriber * 9ere reduction in bill not
sufficient - 1999#2$ CPC 312 Au.
8(elephone remained out of order for 1- da!s * Complainant entitled to rental rebate for one month - 2""3#1$ CPC
%,4 Au.
Telephone shifting - )ela! in shifting telephone as area concerned was non feasible * No case of deficienc! in
service is made out - 1996#1$ CPC %63 Chd
8)ela! of 1" months in shifting of telephone without reasons * )epartment ordered to pa! Rs 6""" as
compensation - 2""1#1$ CPC 6-- AP
8)ela! of 1" months in shifting of telephone * =pposite Part! directed to pa! Rs 11%"" as compensation for
negligence * 2""%#1$ CPC -6, (N
**)ela! of 1*172 !ears in transfer of telephone in complainantDs name * )epartment held liable for negligence -
2"""#1$ CPC 14% Chd
8)ela! of 3 !ears in shifting telephone from Amritsar to Panch@ula * )eficienc! in service proved - 1994#2$ CPC
-33 Pb
8)ela! of 4 months in shifting telephone connection * )epartment liable for deficienc! in service - 2""1#1$ CPC
634 AP
8)ela! of more than 6 months without sound reasons * )epartment held liable for deficienc! in service - 199,#2$
CPC 2,4 (N
8)ela! of more than one month in shifting a telephone amounts to deficienc! in service - 1996#1$ CPC -26 'r
8)ela! of si/ !ears in shifting of telephone * Complainant held entitled to relief of Rs 1"1""" - 199%#2$ CPC -6-
< 2engal
8)epartment should inform the complainant if there is dela! of more than 1% da!s in shifting the telephone
connection - 1996#1$ CPC %44 2ihar
8)eptt dela!ing transfer of telephone on vague ground that signature of applicant were not genuine * Cruel .o@e
with complainant * )eptt directed to pa! Rs 1%""" for as compensation - 1999#1$ CPC -6- Chd
8;ndividual application for transfer of telephone cannot be re.ected merel! that applicant as a partner of a 0irm1 is
in arrears of rent - 1992 CPC %99 Au.
**A person who has no interest in a firm cannot appl! for shifting of telephone of firm > 2""9#1$ CPC 34 NC
**Non*shifting of telephone despite repeated re6uests caused a loss and harassment to the complainant7Advocate >
=P directed to shift telephone with compensation and cost of Rs 1,1""" > 2""9#2$ CPC 2%4 Aoa
8No e/planation given b! )epartment for dela!ing the shifting of telephone for 4 months * Case of deficienc! in
service proved - 2"""#2$ CPC 2-6 Pondicherr!
8=P ma@ing false statement in affidavit regarding shifting of telephone * ;mposition of punitive damages at Rs
%"1""" raised to Rs 11%"1""" * 2""6#2$ CPC %-% NC
8(elephone of a practicing Advocate not shifted for over si/ months for no fault of the consumer is a clear case of
deficienc! in service * 2+N3 directed to pa! compensation of Rs %1""" with cost of Rs 21%"" * 2"",#2$ CPC -63 NC
8<hen a person applies for shifting his telephone to some other area the )eptt should shift the same without an!
loss of time - 199,#1$ CPC %31 (N
Telephone staff conduct - Consumer should not be treated in a shabb! manner b! (elephone emplo!ees b!
issuing a bill even when consumption is Iero - 2""3#1$ CPC 16- Pb
Telephone tariff - Authorit! must give wide publicit! of beneficial circular regarding an! concession in
telephone tariff * 2"",#1$ CPC 2,1 NC
Tele, - )eficienc! * (ele/ installed at complainantDs premises was found to be defective * (elephone )epartment
disconnected connection for non*pa!ment of illegal bill * )isconnection and demand of bill held un.ustified - 1991 CPC
36" 'r
8)isconnection of tele/ without notice * Complainant held entitled to compensation - 199-#2$ CPC 6-" <2engal
Tele, service - +ervice remained out of order for 293 da!s in the !ear * =pposite part!7appellant rightl!
directed to refund rental charges for non functional period with Rs 121%"" as compensation - 2""2#1$ CPC %63 NC
Temporary Telephone - Non e/tension of temporar! telephone connection does not constitute a deficienc!
in service - 199-#2$ CPC -61 'r
33
Terms of agreement - Complainant agreed to pa! itemiIed charges for use of mobile phone * Cannot resile
from terms - 2""1#2$ CPC 3,, Chd
5niformity - Reduction in some bills and not in others * ?niform formulae in preparation of bills should be
adopted - 1999#1$ CPC 1,% Chd
6ague -rounds - )epartment dela!ing transfer of telephone on vague ground that signature of applicant were
not genuine * Cruel .o@e with complainant * )eptt directed to pa! Rs 1%""" for as compensation - 1999#1$ CPC -6-
Chd
6alidity - Rule --3 of (elegraph Rules providing for disconnection of telephone for non*pa!ment of bill is not
legall! invalid - 199%#2$ CPC 212 NC
6alidity of &rder - Concurrent finding of authorities below not based upon cogent evidence * ;mpugned order
set aside - 199,#2$ CPC 2%% NC
6iolation of 'ules - Complainant failed to pa! bill despite several opportunities to pa! in instalments * Rule
--3 violated * )isconnection .ustified - 2""-#1$ CPC 2,% Pb
MMMMM
Consumer Protection Cases
7C/P/C/8
A 0onthly %a (ournal
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, ailways, Transport, !lectricity, Housin" Board, Urban Development #uthorities, Industrial and
Consumer #ssociations etc$
<e publish a monthl! 3aw Bournal namel!
JConsumer %rotection CasesK
Details of 6olumes
9/ 9::9 Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc"
;/ 9::; Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc"
</ 9::< Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc"
=/ 9::= 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
>/ 9::= 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
?/ 9::> 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
@/ 9::> 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
A/ 9::? 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
:/ 9::? 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9B/ 9::@ 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
99/ 9::@ 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9;/ 9::A 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9</ 9::A 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9=/ 9::: 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9>/ 9::: 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9?/ ;BBB 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9@/ ;BBB 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9A/ ;BB9 394 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
9:/ ;BB9 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases Rs %""7* onl!
;B/ ;BB; 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
3-
;9/ ;BB; 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;;/ ;BB< 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;</ ;BB< 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;=/ ;BB= 394 Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc"
;>/ ;BB= 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;?/ ;BB> 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;@/ ;BB> 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;A/ ;BB? 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
;:/ ;BB? 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<B/ ;BB@ 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<9/ ;BB@ 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<;/ ;BBA 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<</ ;BBA 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<=/ ;BBA 3<4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<>/ ;BB: 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<?/ ;BB: 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<@/ ;BB: 3<4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<A/ ;B9B 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
<:/ ;B9B 3;4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
=B/ ;B9B 3<4 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
=9/ ;B99 394 Consumer Protection Cases 's/ >AB#- only
=;/ Annual Subscription ;B99 For three 6ols 's/ 9<?B#- only
=</ Consumer Protection Cases Digest 9::9 to ;BBA 's/ 9<;B#- only
#ddress for Correspondence &
9anager1
Consumer Protection Cases
12%11 +ector 4*C1
Chandigarh > 16" ""9
Phones N "1,2*2%--43" and "9-1,-1-6,%
:*mail cpcOchdH!ahoocom
wwwconsumercasesin
MMMM

Telephone Services Consumerism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Telephone Services Consumerism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Consumer Protection Digest

You might also like