On October 23, 1989, the firm's telephone changed to electronic mode. Around this time, the telephone started giving problems and the company, situated in Lower Parel, complained to the MTNL, which sent back a stock reply asking the firm to bear with the ``teething troubles''.

Six months later, the firm received its first bill from the electronic exchange for the period between October and December '89 for a whopping Rs 94,994. The meter reading shown in the computerised bill had been scratched out and different figures written manually. The MTNL claimed these to be correct even though the past billing pattern of the company before it switched over to electronic mode would range around Rs 30,000.Subsequently, two more excessive bills were received, one within 12 days (March 16, '90) for Rs 1,32,418 and the other (May 16, '90) for Rs 85,154.

The case was filed in the first week of June '95 at the State Commission which ordered the MTNL to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and asked for the bils to be revised in consultation with the subscriber. The MTNL went in for an appeal to the National Commission.

The National Commission found that the bills were prima facie incorrect and overlapping and that the department had not given a personal hearing despite the subscriber asking for it. It also said the MTNL had not considered various points put forth by the complainant in the correspondence. The National Commission sent the case back to the General Manager, central area, MTNL for a personal hearing and reconsideration of the matter.

The case finally landed at the Additional Consumer Forum. Jehangir Gai, appearing on behalf of the complainant, argued that the burden of proving the correctness of the billshifts to the MTNL the moment it is shown that there is something wrong with the equipment and the data on the magnetic tapes. Bills are printed on the basis of data on magnetic tapes and if they are written manually, there is bound to be something wrong with the equipment, he said.

He added that the firm had several telephones, a telex and a fax machine. If there was an increase in business, there would have been a corresponding increase in all the other bills too.

The third point he raised was concerning a MTNL circular which states that in case of spurt in bills, the telephone should be kept under observation and a responsible person deputed to visit the subscriber's place to check the reason for the sudden increase. If this is not done, necessary education and disciplinary action be taken against the staff. The MTNL was told that it was breaching its own circular.

The Additional Consumer Forum recently passed an order asking the MTNL to refund to the complainant a total amount of Rs 2,32,866 withinterest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of payment of the bills by the complainant till refund, as well as Rs 500 as cost of the case.