Average monthly bill prior to disputed bill not more than Rs.500/- Averment that his telephone was not working nor controverted by authorities No clandestine use of STD proved. Award is set aside. [ Abdul Aziz Meherbaksh vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. AIR 2000 Bombay 260. Dr.B.P.Saraf & V.G.Daga (J&J)]
Dispute regarding excess bill - Refusal to refer the matter to arbitrator under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act- Civil Suit is maintainable - Civil suit will lie . [ Union of India vs. Sasi. 1999 (2) KLT 521 = 1999 (1) KLJ 775. .S.Sankarasubban (J)]
Complaints regarding bills for telephone charges- Reference to adjudication under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act ,1885 is necessary. Payment of disputed amount without adopting for such procedure cannot be insisted upon. [P.S.B.Raj vs Dist.Manager. 1989(1) KLJ 481. T.L.Viswanatha Iyer (J)]
Complaints regarding excess billing has to be dealt with fairly and justly. State is providing a public utility service in which consumers satisfaction must be regarded as a matter of prime importance. [ In the matter of Nanak Chand, Teheog. AIR 1989 H.P. 46]
Complaint regarding excess billing shall not be rejected perfunctorily. Directions issued by the Department shall be followed. [Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones AIR 1990 Gau 47]
Spurt in metered calls just after the number of telephones having FAX machine changed, it requires Department to carry out thorough investigation. Necessary direction issued to the Department. [Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Bombay vs. M/s. West Coast Industries and another. 1994(2) CPR 213. (National Commission)]
Departmental guildelines issued for disposal of excess metering complaints has to be followed strictly. [Union of India vs. Patel Shankar Lal Kevalram. 1994 (3) CPR 323 (State Commission -Ahamedabad. ]
Direct or circumstantial evidence necessary to show defective or misuse of the telephone before the bills are quashed or reduced. [ S.D.O.Telephones vs Ramdeo Prasad Sultania. 1994(2) CPR 67. (State Commission. Patna )]