Rent payable depends on the number of lines given from a
telephone exchange and not on the capacity of the exchange. [Edavanakkad
Telephone Subscribers Association vs. The General Manager. OP.No. 23940 of 1999.
Dated 23-11-1999. G.Sasidharan (J)]
A complaint was lodged against the Telecom Department
stating the rental fixed at Rs.150/-was changed without issuing any notice to
Rs.250/-. Reversing the finding of the
District forum the State Forum has held that notification regarding such change
should be issued. [G. Madhavan Nair v. Telecom
District Manager. 1996 (3) CPR. 280]
The telephone was out of order for a certain period. No rent can be levied for the period the telephone
was out of order. In view of Rues 421(2) the authorities are bound to
maintain the telephone connection in working conditions. [Naresh Candra Roy v. Union of India. Calcutta High Court. AIR 1987
Cal. 147: 1987 (1) KLT SN. 73 Page 53]
Government of deciding to charge additional rent for
stand-by equipment in January,1976 Demand for additional payment from 1970 is
without jurisdiction. [ Govt. of India vs ITH &
CO. AIR 1980 Ker.211. V.B.Eradi (CJ) & Balagangadharan Nairi (J)]
Demand of additional rent beyond
local area after 20 years by the Department of Telecom is not unjustifiable or
illegal. [Kerala Nilgiri Hills Tea
Plantations v.. Accounts Officer C.P.No.18/1992 (Consumer Disputes, district
Forum, Ooty]
Enhancement of monthly rent. In determining the bi-monthly rental the
installed capacity of the Telephone Exchange System has to be taken into
consideration and not merely its working lines. [District Manager V. Kailashchandra Agarwal. 1995(2) CPR 474 (National)]
Complainant's telephone remained
out of order for 661 days during the lapse of two years. The Department was directed to grant rebate
for the said 661 days.
[Mamta Rani Khaithan v.
Divisional Engineer, 1994 (2) CPR 130]
The Telecom Department in spite
of repeated requests of the complainant did not give rental rebate to him for a
period of about one year. It was the
duty of the Department to give rental rebate.
If there is delay the subscriber is entitled to the damages on account
of mental agony, and harassment. [Gen.
Manager v. Ramesh Chand. 1995(1) CPR
136]
If rent is to be recovered during
the period of disconnection, the department should ensure that the telephone
devise serves some purpose to the subscriber.
Otherwise the collection of rent is illegal. The Department is directed to restore connection without charging
for rent and reconnection charges.
[P.A. Marianathan v. Telecom District Engineer. 1995 (2) CPR 350]
Telephone call was made from a
PCO. The number dialled went to a wrong
number. Compliant was charged at Re.1/-
for the said call by the person manning the telephone. Claim for refund of the said amount was
rejected for the reason that unless there was an error on the part of the
operator, i.e. human error, charges can be collected. [The General Manager v. K. Veeresh Babhu. 1996(3) CPR. 118]