A contested consumer dispute can only be decided on the basis of evidence and not de hors thereof.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—This appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant-department by the order of this Commission in I (1991) CPJ 653, Executive Engineer, Operation, H.S.E.B. Hisar v. Dr. Chander Bhan, it therefore, suffices to advert to the facts in brevity. The appellant-department has assailed the order of the District Forum, Hisar granting substantial relief to the respondent-telephone subscriber basically on the ground of the highest number of calls in some of the past bills with increase of 20 per cent thereon. Accordingly, the three impugned bills dated September 11, 1991, November 11, 1991, and January 11, 1992 were substantially scaled down.

2. The respondent in a complaint which is remarkably cryptic had merely alleged that the aforesaid three bills were highly excessive and in fact he had never made such a large number of calls and consequently there was a deficiency in service.

3. On notice being issued to the appellant department, the stand of the complainant was stoutly controverted. It was first pointed out that he had not chosen to make any representation to the department with regard to the bills in question. On merits, the categoric stand taken was as under:—

“That the complainant used his telephone very frequently for out station calls. The bills are genuine and correct. There is no question of excess billing. The case of the complainant was thoroughly examined and the telephone and meter was found O.K. There is no defect in the machinery. It is also pertinent to mention here that the telephone call charges have been increased by the Govt. of India considerably from April, 1990. The bill Rs. 8,733/- were two bills for the month of 11.9.91 and 11.11.1991. So, the bills are correct and genuine. The complainant be directed to deposit the bill to avoid disconnection.”

4. What is significant is the fact that despite having been stoutly challenged the complainant chose to lead no evidence worth the name in support of his case. The brief complaint itself was not verified and even an affidavit of the complainant in support thereof was not added. Barring the copies of the disputed bills and photo copies of some receipts and a continuation sheet of trunk call bill/statement nothing else was brought on the record to buttress its stand.

5. The District Forum in its somewhat brief order adverted to the billing beginning from September, 1990 to infer that the disputed bills should not exceed Rs. 2,000/-, each including rent.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has apparently assailed the findings of the District Forum. It has been forcefully contended that the theory of billing on the previous averages or the maximum number of calls now stands severely dis-approved by the National Commission particularly in the context of consumer enjoying STD facility.

7. There is patent merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-department. A consistent precedent of the National Commission has now frowned on interference on telephone charges on the ground of averages on the pattern of calling and the theory of highest number of calls. Reference in this connection may be made to I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), The District Manager, Telephones & Ors. v. Niti Saran, II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC), Telephone District Manager, Patna v. Kalyanpur Cement Industry and II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC), Divisional Manager Telephones v. Madhu Enterprise, Lucknow.

8. Apart from the above, it bears repetition that no evidence worth the name was led by the complainant to support his somewhat sketchy complaint. It is true that the burden on a consumer may be light but nevertheless the same has to be discharged by producing some meaningful material to merit interference. This has been authoritatively so held in Executive Engineer Operation, HSEB, Hissar (supra) in the following terms:—

“Apart from the statute, on the larger principle also it seems somewhat elementary that the orders of the Redressal Agencies under the Act, which undoubtedly ar