The court emphasized the responsibility of the Telecommunication Department to ensure correct metering and highlighted the jurisdiction of Redressal Forums under the Act to decide disputes covered by Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1887.

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President — The opposite parties before the District Forum have assailed the order dated 13.11.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 266/90 by filing this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein). By the impugned order the District Forum directed the opposite parties to reduce the number of the local calls from 1190 to 340 in regard to the bill dated 11.10.1989 and from 800 calls to 340 calls in respect of the bill dated 11.12.89 and further ordering the opposite parties to adjust the amount already recovered in respect of the aforesaid two bills in future bills. Briefly put, the facts leading to this appeal are these:—

2. The complainant-respondent No. 1 is a subscriber of telephone No. 26013. The telephone was installed after his retirement on 3.12.1981. The complainant received bills dated 11.8.1989, 11.10.1989 and 11.12.1989 for Rs. 470/- , 1190/- and Rs. 800/- respectively. The material details in the bills are these:—

Bill dated 11.8.1989 Calls 470

(for the period Less rebate 285

ending on 31-7-1989) 185 Rs. 148/-

Bill dated 11.10.1989 Calls 1190

(for the period ending Less rebate 305

on 30.9.1989) 885 Rs.708/-

Bill dated 11.12.1989 Calls 800

(for the period ending Less rebate 260

on 28.11.1989) 540 Rs.432/-

1288/-

3. The complainant made a complaint on telephone regarding the bill dated 11.8.1989 and he was told that since the amount was much he should await the next bill. When the next bill dated 11.10.1989 was inflated the complainant lodged another complaint dated 17.10.1989 (Annexure2). The complaint was rejected vide D.E. Phone letter dated 21.11.1989 on the ground that on investigation no fault was found in the meter and excess calls are due to full use of S.T.D. facility. The complainant received bill dated 11.12.1989. That also contained excessive calls. The complainant made a representation on 26.12.1989 to the Director, Telecom. Jodhpur (Annexure-IV). He also met Shri S .K. Sharma, Director, Telecom, on 5-1-1990 and explained to him the entire position. Verbally assurance was given to the complainant that reasonable decision will be taken. However, a letter dated 1.1.1990 was received from his office stating that enquiry regarding the bill relating to period ending on 30.9.1989 pertaining to the bill dated 11.10.1989 was being made by his office and complaint regarding bill dated 1112-1989 was sent to Divisional Engineer for necessary action. When nothing was heard from the Director, he wrote a reminder to Shri S.K. Sharma on 26.3.1990 and reply dated 30.3.1990 was received in which it was stated as under:—

1. that as regards bill dated 11.10.1989 and 11.12.1989 await the order of Divisional Engineer; and

2. as regards bill dated 11.8.1989, no action can be taken as he had made no complaint to the Divisional Engineer.

4. Subsequently a letter dated 24.3.1990 in regard to the bill dated 11.12.1989 was received from the Divisional Engineer rejecting the complaint on the ground that the meter was in order and the excess calls were on account of the S.T.D. calls. The complainant obtained details of the fortnightly meter readings from the Divisional Engineer, which is Annexure-VIII. The case of the complainant is that Annexure-VIII makes it clear that the telephone meter or line was tampered with or the meter had made a jump and according to him he did not make calls to such an extent. He submitted that the three bills were inflated on the following grounds which may be reproduced in the words of the complainant:—

“1. We are only two persons i.e. myself and wife in the house and we use the telephone very sparingly as will be clear from the fact that in the last 8 years, our calls never exceeded the number of free calls allowed. In fact we had made 4000 to 5000 calls less than the free calls allowed in these years even when S.T.D. facility was connected with my phone.

2. The telephone meter is under the cust