You are on page 1of 34

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
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)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
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 &
)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
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
&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
**;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
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
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
(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
**;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
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 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
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
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)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
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
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(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 &
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