STD-PCO Centre operators dispute
correctness of the recording of calls at the Department of
Telecommunications. The remedy is
before the arbitrator under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. [G.P. Chovatia v. C.G.M. Gujarat Telecom
Circle. AIR 1996 Guj. 153]
Complainant was made regarding excessive and inflated bills in respect of local and STD Calls. Non-payment of bills by subscriber. Complaint filed by subscriber against excessive billing. Disconnection of telephone in the circumstances with out considering the correctness of complaint in the circumstances is not correct.
In providing the
telecommunication services the state is running a public utility services in
which the consumer's satisfaction must be regarded as a matter of prime
importance. Complaints of excess
metering should be dealt with fairly, justly in spirit of service and on basis
of commercial expediency. [In
the matter of Nanak Chand {Suo motu contempt proceedings} AIR 1989 H.P. 46]
The STD facility of the
subscriber was removed on payment of prescribed fee. The subscriber was directed to pay a huge bill. There was nothing on record to suggest how a
telephone which was barred of STD facility could still be used for STD calls,
except a bald statement by the authorities that it was possible to get STD
service on STD barred numbers as opined by technical authorities of
department. High Court granted rebate
to the subscriber in view of the undisputed statement that the average absence
of material it could not be said that there was clandestine use for purpose of
STD. [M/s. Rao & Co. v. A.O.D.E.T.
Office, AIR 1986 Bomb 227]
Disconnection of mothers
telephone for the default of the son's phone is illegal. For son's arrears of telephone charges, it
is unjustifiable to disconnect the mother's telephone. [The Accounts Officer(TR) v. T.T. Eliamma.
1996(1) CPR 4861] [Y. Pridhvi Kumar v. The General Manager. AIR 1993 A.P.131]
Subscriber means a person who has
subscribed for a particular telephone whether it be an individual or a
partnership firm or a corporate body.
It would not include his relations who have independent connections and
whose phone the defaulter may be using.
Telephone of a father cannot be disconnected for the default of his
Son/Daughter-in law [T.
Abraham v. Telecom District Manager.
AIR 1996 Ker 359]
Failure of a partnership firm to
pay the telephone bills. The partner is
liable to pay its due. Service of
notice on the partner is sufficient. No
violation of the principles of nature justice.
[Indravadan Pranlal Shah v. General Manager. AIR 1990 Guj. 85]
Telephone of a Private Limited
Company. Telephone of its Managing
Director/Directors cannot be disconnected.
In case of proprietory concern
its owner cannot claim restoration of connection unless the telephone bills are
paid. [V.V. Rama Rao. v. Union of India.
AIR 1997 A.P. 344]
A business man subscriber is having offices throughout the country. A complaint was lodged regarding excess billing. Opportunity of personal hearing not availed of. Observation report show excessive usage of telephone. Disconnection of subscriber's telephone at other business places in view of non-payment of bill at one place is not illegal. [Mangeeram Daulatram Agarwal v. Union of India. AIR 1993 Gau. 160]
Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules
does not apply to disconnection of telex for non-payment of dues. It authorised the disconnection of telephone
or telephones on account of non-payment of the dues in respect of telephone
service. [Orissa Vegetable Oil Complex
Ltd. v. Union of India. AIR 1990 Ori.
51]