MTNL rapped for incorrect billing

MUMBAI,SEPT 1: A businessman who was served a bill for a telephone he didn8217;t possess in the first place has been given a breather by the consumer courts. The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum, in a recent judgement, has ruled that the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd can recover dues only from the actual subscriber.

In 1991, B R Mistry purchased a flat in Vile Parle, which had a phone connection 6129200 left behind by the previous owner. Mistry was assured that the phone would be transferred soon, but as that did not happen, he got his own phone 6133290. In May 1993, Mistry was served a bill of Rs 39,717 on the previous owner8217;s phone. MTNL said since it had been unable to trace the original owner, Mistry would have to pay the charges for the phone, which was in his custody. He said the phone had been dead during the period of billing. When he complained to MTNL, he was told that his connection would be cut if he didn8217;t pay up. He was asked to pay in 10 installments.

When Mistry failed to cough upthe first installment, his telephone was disconnected on March 24, 1995. He then paid the first installment of Rs 4,375 on March 30, and his connection was restored that very day. Mistry, with the help of consumer activist Kirit P Doshi, filed a complaint. The MTNL argued that Mistry had at some point used the owner8217;s telephone, and said they had never threatened to disconnect his phone.

The court ruled that 8220;for non-payment of a bill for a phone in the name of someone else, a phone standing in the name of the subscriber cannot be disconnected.8221; The court also directed MTNL to pay back the installment amount of Rs 4,375 and also Rs 100 to meet the legal expenses incurred by the complainant. However, the court refused to grant Mistry damages as he owned up to using the phone to make local calls.