Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: Mtnl

  1. #1
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default Mtnl

    Appeal no. FA-8/1054
    (Appeal against the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by District Forum , North , Tis Hazari, in complaint case no.1410/2007)

    MTNL,

    Khursheed Lal Bhawan,

    Janpath, New Delhi.



    …..Appellant/O.P.

    through

    Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocate


    V
    Shri S.K. Saxena,

    D 1/1, MCD Officers Flats,

    10, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines,

    Delhi-110054.

    ……Respondent/complainant
    through

    Shri Aatri Slip, Advocate.

    CORAM



    Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

    M.L. Sahni, Member



    1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

    judgment?



    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?





    M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER



    1. This appeal by MTNL, the Opposite Party before the District Forum , has been filed assailing the order dated 15.10.2008, whereby, the Appellants have been directed to treat the calls made by the complainant (Respondent before us) on mobile phones as local calls and raise the bills accordingly without any surcharge for late payment. It is further directed that the Appellants would also charge all other similarly placed subscribers accordingly. Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation have also been awarded in favour of Respondent, vide the impugned order.

    2. Facts , giving rise to this appeal, are that Respondent is a subscriber of telephone no. 23932131 allotted by the Appellant. The grievance of the Respondent was with respect to two bills, the details of which are, bill no. 2061241010 for an amount of Rs. 6,159/- and bill no. 2051425279 for Rs. 11,967/-.

    3. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant had charged huge amount on account of call charges in bill no. 2051241010 and bill no. 2051425279 and an amount of Rs. 4,987/- and Rs. 3,328.80 paise respectively has been charged in excess on account of called-charges ; that excess amount is being charged to the calls made on the mobile phones ; that he has not received any notice that the calls made to mobile phones would be treated as trunk calls i.e. the call would be for one minute and charged accordingly ; that no recorded warning was given in case of trunk call ; that is one call is over and the conversation continues, it would be counted as second call on the same number itself; that the Respondent had taken Tri Band Subscription on 17.08.2006, however, he had not signed any contract and he was not given any warning that excess downloading of data would be charged ; that exhorbitant amount has been charged to the extent of Rs. 5,119.00 on account of Tri Band subscription ; that the said amount requires to be reduced and the calls made on mobile numbers be treated as local calls ; that the bill be charged on the basis of six monthly average prior to these two disputed bills; and that amount charged on account of Tri-Band subscription be also cancelled.

    4. Refuting the allegations made by the Respondent in the complaint, the Appellant admitted before the Ld. District Forum that the Respondent is the subscriber of Telephone no. 23932131. It was pleaded by the them that at no point of time any complaint with respect to the excessive billing had been made, with respect to the telephone bills, prior to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum ; that the said bills had been raised as per the actual meter reading ; that fortnightly meter reading would show that in the past also, the number of calls made by the respondent had been on higher-side i.e. bill dated 11.07.2005 shows 4553 calls made and bill dated 11.09.2005 was for 2268 calls ; that there was no chance of misuse of the telephone of the respondent ; that the reason as to why the bills with respect to the telephone of the Respondent were on higher side, was because most of the calls had been made to mobile numbers and as per the tariff plan, the calls made from landline to mobile numbers were charged as one call per minute. Call details of the telephone number of the Respondent w.e.f. 1.5.2006 to 31.08.2006 showing the details of the numbers called along with the date and time and duration of the call are shown in Annexure-4 ; that the bills have been raised as per the metered calls and there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Appellant ; that as per the tariff plan, a call made from the landline to mobile phone, the pulse rate is 1 minute per call. This scheme had been given wide publicity as per Annexure A 5 ; that, merely because the Respondent has shown his ignorance of the tariff plan cannot be a ground for giving any concession to the respondent, to cancel the bills which are being raised for the calls having actually been made by the respondent, all the subscribers are always well informed by way of wide publicity regarding any change in any tariff plan through notification in newspapers and through hoardings; and the tariff plans are also available on internet ; that even in the past, before the date of disputed bills, had been raised charging the calls made on the mobile phone for one minute pulse ; that the calls made to mobile from landline cannot be treated other than trunk call ; that the Respondent had subscribed for Tri Bank facility w.e.f. 17.08.2006 and prior to this, the Respondent was accessing the internet through dial up facility ; that the charges applicable in respect of the Tri Band services and dial up facility are different by calculated ; ; that in case of dial-up facility, the charges are as pre the duration of the session, while in case of Tri -Band Services, the charges are as per the applicable plan and depend upon the amount of the data downloaded and also on the speed of the connection subscribed to ; that prior to 17.08.2006 the Respondent was using the dial up facility and for the same, the charges were mentioned in the bill dated 9.9.2006 i.e. Rs. 523.20 paise ; that after the Respondent having subscribed to Tri Band subscription w.e.f. 17.08.2006, the charges for the same were Rs. 5,119.06 paise for the period 17.08.2006 to 31.08.2006 detailed as under :

    Minimum charges for broadband Rs. 96.29 paise

    CPE rental Rs. 38.71 paise

    Total usage (MB) Rs. 5177.61 paise

    Free limit(MB) Rs. 193.55 paise

    Amount payable after adjusting free

    Limit (MB) Rs. 4984.06 paise

    Rate per MB are Rs. 1 /-

    Extra usage charges comes to Rs. 4984.06 paise

    Total charges Rs. 5119.06 paise.



    Shown in annexure - A6

    That, the bills with respect to the Broad Band subscription for the period 01st September, 2006 to 30th September, 2006 was to the tune of Rs. 12,232/- which itself shows that the Respondent was a heavy user of the internet.

    5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and the AR of the Respondent who submitted that the written reply already filed by the Respondent be taken into consideration, while disposing of this appeal. Accordingly, we have carefully perused the same, whereby the impugned order is stated to be perfectly justified praying further , that ,



    i) the orders be passed for the execution of the relief granted to the petitioner by District Forum only to Respondent rather than all other similarly placed customers all over Delhi & India. Because this proposition involves huge revenue in terms of crores of rupees earned by MTNL by this method only and provides scope to MTNO to file appeal.



    ii) MTNL be directed to give clear and understandable Tariif Plans henceforth using the language understandable by common-public directly to the customers on the reverse of its bills in its advertisements in the newspapers and also through recorded cassettes on telephone in clear terms on the internet, including printed warning regarding rates of usage and approval /agreements to pay higher tariff/amount on internet itself like other service providers such as Reliance etc.

    6. We have thoughtfully considered the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. We have also examined the documents placed on record by the parties. Appellants have not filed the copy of the original complaint. It is , therefore, not possible to ascertain as to how far the impugned order has exceeded its limits. No doubt blanket relief granted to all the subscribers placed in similar situations to be treated alike as per the relief granted to the Respondent, prime- facie appears to be traversing jurisdiction not vested in the Ld. District forum. The Respondent also accedes to this fact in his written reply to the appeal.

    7. So far as the Respondent is concerned his sole grievance before the Ld. District Forum was that over charging in the billing for period from 17.8.2006 to 31.8.2006 as Rs. 5,114/- is excessive and the Ld. District Forum recorded its finding that “ A perusal of the bill dated 09.09.2006 will show that the opposite party has charged Tri Band subscription of Rs. 5,114/- from 17.08.2006 to 31.008.2006 which ( also seems to be exhorbitant for 15 days period” . To this exent the impugned order is perfectly justified because Respondent who is senior Govt. officer working as Dy. Secretary (Coordinating ) with MCD cannot be disbelieve that out of the list of telephone calls made, large number of calls are not known to him and that he had made complaints to the Appellants earlier also for excess billing.

    8. It is also the case of the Respondent that Inspector’s Report (Annexure 3) of the Appellant does not mention any External Electronic Device or External Tampering, to prove that possibility of misuse of connection externally cannot be ruled out. Thus the contention of the Respondent has been rightly appreciated by the Ld. District Forum. It is admitted case of the Respondent that he has made use of the telephone and internet .

    9. However, since we find the following part of the impugned order beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in it, the same requires medication :

    “ and direct the Opposite party treat the calls made by the complainant on mobile phones as local call and raise the bills accordingly without any late payment surcharge”.



    10. Hence modifying the impugned order, we allow the appeal partly and direct the Appellant that they shall raise the Bill for the disputed period afresh on the basis of average use by the Respondent during the period six months prior to 17.8.2006 without levying any surcharge for late payment of the bill for the period i.e. 17.8.2006 to 31.8.2006. Amount of compensation and cost as awarded by the Ld. District Forum shall remain unaltered , while future bills shall be raised as per the tariff plan to which the Respondent subscribes.

    11. FDR / Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith after completion of due formalities.

    12. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , file be consigned to Record Room.

  2. #2
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Regarding excess bill for the mtnl broadband connection

    Sir,
    My Telephone No is 24646044, and I was using the internet connection. In the month of November 2009,
    I wanted to change the plan from triband Rs250/. to combo Rs.599/- unlimited plan from the month December 2009
    and I submiited my application in that regard on 17-11-2009. The Bill came of Rs. 3634/- for the month of Dec 2009.
    But the plan for the month of December 2009 was unlimited combo plan of Rs 599/-. I made complaint. But I am not
    satisfied with their replied. Since the plan for the month of Dec 2009 was combo unlimited of Rs 599/-.
    How could they charged for more. It is not possible. Kindly strict action maybe appreciated.

    Thanking you.

    Yours sincerely,
    S.M.JEYACHANDRAN,
    BLOCK 9/719 LODI COLONY,
    NEW DELHI - 110003.3.May.2010.part7.rar

  3. #3
    smjchandran is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Regarding excess bill of broaadband connection unlimited download of Rs 599/-

    Sir,
    My Telephone No is 24646044, and I was using the internet connection. In the month of November 2009,
    I wanted to change the plan from triband Rs250/. to combo Rs.599/- unlimited plan from the month December 2009
    and I submiited my application in that regard on 17-11-2009. The Bill came of Rs. 3634/- for the month of Dec 2009.
    But the plan for the month of December 2009 was unlimited combo plan of Rs 599/-. I made complaint. But I am not
    satisfied with their replied. Since the plan for the month of Dec 2009 was combo unlimited of Rs 599/-.
    How could they charged for more. It is not possible. Kindly strict action maybe appreciated.

    Thanking you.

    Yours sincerely,
    S.M.JEYACHANDRAN,
    BLOCK 9/719 LODI COLONY,
    NEW DELHI - 110003.3.May.2010.part7.rar

  4. #4
    Unregistered Guest

    Thumbs down dolphin

    my play tone reqvest not comlpet

  5. #5
    chrisjarvis is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Telecom operator MTNL in India has already rolled out 3G services in Mumbai.

  6. #6
    nazir is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I nazir Ahmad the owner of my landline NO. 01129943822.I here seek your help that I had shifted in may 2013 to my new address and had applied for telephone shift to this new location in Sarita vihar.I went many times but nothing they just give dates etc.etc.MTNL service to my number since february 2013 is bard and don1t know the reason.I have given all the documents required that is with with SDO sarita vihar.
    Please do this for me to inquire and install telephone to my new address.
    Name:Nazir Ahmad
    Previous address:E-241/3/2,Allama shibli road,shaheen Bagh,Jamia Nagar,Okhla,New Delhi-110025
    Present address:F-79,G/F,Near Hari Kothi,Abul Fazal Enclave-1,Jamia Nagar,Okhla,New Delhi-110025
    My personal mobile No:9311512308

  7. #7
    Unregistered Guest

    Angry My phone is dead 12 August 2013 till now

    My name is Rashid my telephone no. is 22945703 i am using this phone to use internet and i am paying Rs. 757 every month but my telephone is dead from 12 August 2013 till now and no action taken from anybody to fix my problem i told this in KTR exchange they told me there are some cable problem and request sent to YVR exchange.

    I am getting bill from MTNL but why I will pay my bill because I am not using Telephone and Internet due to dead phone.
    and my connection closed. what should I do.

    Regards,
    Rashid
    9891770866

  8. #8
    zmnadeem is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2

    Angry MTNL land line not setup since 4 months

    I, Mohammed Zakir Nadeem, ordered MTNL land line through internet (online order) to be set up at my residence.

    Till today (3-Oct-2013) no MTNL employee has called up or made an attempt to reach me for installing the land line. I made an attempt to contact MTNL customer care numbers, but they always show as busy. I also sent an email to selfcare@mtnl.net.in dated 11-July-2013 asking for the status, but no response either.

    Due to unusual and unheard of delay from a reputable company like MTNL, I want to cancel the work order and the amount (Rs. 500) refunded with interest immediately.


    Below is the work order details:
    - Work order# 2154
    - Telephone# 27550570
    - Order date: 8-July-2013


    I want your help in processing cancellation for work order and the amount refunded to my credit card account.

    Here is the work order current status as of 3-Oct-2013

    Attachment 12281
    Regards,
    Mohammed Zakir

  9. #9
    nitinkaus is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4

    Default

    My telephone number is 011-25946777. I logged 10 to 15 times. I registered the complaint but all to no purpose. The lastest one is today with the complaint number 348. Whenever we launch a complaint, these guys will automatically erase the complaint after a few days without notifying us. It has been around one months, my telephone is dead.

    Nitin Kaushik
    9910464807

  10. #10
    9968261610 Guest

    Default Sub : Suspension of services in r/o Dolphin no. 9968261610.

    Sir,

    I am an old subscriber of MTNL dolphin no. 9968261610, and I have never defaulted payments. In all of bills credit limit has been shown as Rs.2000/-. Today I am surprised to note that this dolphin's services have been suspended due to default in payment. Immediately I visited Badali telephone exchange and obtained duplicate bill (Bills were never delivered to me at my address; and I used to collect duplicate bills always), bearing no.100174751539 dt 7-11-2013 for Rs. 551/- with due date on 29th November 2013. Thus disconnection has been made without any reason/justification. It is not known why MTNL is showing Credit limit as Rs.2000/- and how MTNL can suspend the services when DUE date is on 29-10-2013. I have been deprived of my privilege and services, which I am supposed to get. Kindly get my grievances redressed at the earliest. Also pls direct MTNL to deliver the bills at my address always, and show the details of amounts credited by me to MTNL from time to time, in the Bills generated by them.

    Thanking you,
    Yours faithfully,

    Jayaprakash.

  11. #11
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Regarding for duplicate sim card

    Good Evening Sir/Medam



    My self Shashi Prakash. I have purchage MTNL prepaid Sim card since 2008 from gurgaon retail shop and i give driving licence as identity and address proof. And My Sim is activated at time.After five year my sim card is not work ( Insert sim show in phone ). Then I contact MTNL sanchar hart for duplcate sim card. Then check my Sim card id and my ID is ok. But Local address is filled by retailer. Sanchar hart person suggest me you arrange local id as voter ID, Rashan card, and Rent Agreement. Then I arrange rent agreement certificate And then going to MTNL sanchar, cotact for duplicate sim card issu.


    MTNL sanchar hert person told me this rent agreement is sign by resistor or magistrate. then told me your duplicate sim card not issu in given address.





    Please help me for how to get duplicate sim card because my number is very important.




    Shashi Prakash
    contact Number 9211303848
    9311415668

  12. #12
    Ritesh Gautam Guest

    Default Land-line Dead and Internet Disconnected since past 2 months

    To whomsoever it may concern

    My telephone no. is 26502442
    I have been complaining for the non-working condition of my Land-line and the Broadband connection since past few weeks but it is very disappointing on your part not to entertain my calls. I tried reaching Mr. Deepak Kumar (SDO, Chhatarpur) but he never seems to be available to hear my complaint. Moreover, I am getting bills for payment without even getting to enjoy your services.

    I would appreciate if you take necessary action to make amends for the inconvenience caused.

    Regards,

    Ritesh Gautam
    9968275442
    Silver Oak Farms, Ghitorni
    New Delhi 110030

  13. #13
    Unregistered Guest

    Default MTNL not caring for complaint

    I am using MTNL no 022-25310333
    I am using MTNL broadband but I am facing hell of issues with MTNL service. I have complained many a times for low speed and frequent disconnection but its of no use. It works well for few minute but then it go worse. I have 1.5Mbps speed plan however, I hardly get 60-70kbps speed.
    I want to escalate this to higher level and solve this daily problem I am facing. Latest complaint no is 7663.

  14. #14
    Unregistered Guest

    Default My Internet Not Working

    Sir,
    My Telephone No is 26669925 Is not working properly Last one week I Was Called my exchange That guys told me this the line man problem & line man told me that is the exchange Problem Thats is my Problem Tel me what can i do

    Thanking you.

    Yours sincerely,
    Suman Kumar Jha
    D18 gali no 09
    Om Nagar Meethapur
    Badarpur
    New Delhi-44

    01126669925

  15. #15
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Internet Connection

    Hi ,

    My name is sneha jha . My Landline number is :26807199 I have so many problem running Internet . he suffering again and again around For 5 min . and internet not running properly around 1 week . plz suggested me what will i do plz solve my problem asap .


    Sneha jha
    09958081032

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mtnl iptv
    By Sandeep Kumar. in forum Direct To Home (DTH)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 03:16 PM
  2. Mtnl
    By MAHESH KUMAR HINGORANI in forum Land Line Phone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 10:53 PM
  3. Mtnl
    By R_venket in forum Land Line Phone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 10:45 AM
  4. Mtnl Broadband
    By Unregistered in forum Broadband
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 11:33 PM
  5. Mtnl pco 26449762
    By bharti gupta in forum Land Line Phone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 03:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •