Mr. Justice D.R Vithal Rao, President— This appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated. 19.4.1994, passed by the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore, in Complaint No. COM/540/93, directing the opposite party to issue the revised bill in place of bill dated 1.1.1993 disclosing the chargeable calls made during the period from 16.12.1992 to 15.2.1993, as 860 calls, and to refund the excess amount .collected to the complainant with interest thereon.

The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

1. The complainant is a subscriber of telephone bearing No. MR 26475 installed in her office at Mangalore. It has got an STD facility. The complainant received a bill dated 1.1.1993 for the bi-monthly period from 16.10.1992 to 15.12.1992 for chargeable calls of 5530. It is the case of the complainant that this bill is highly excessive and inflated as average number of calls made from this telephone during the bimonthly period of one year prior to the period of the said bill was only 782. The complainant disputing the said bill filed a complaint with the opposite party. On receipt of the said complaint, pending investigation, a provisional bill for Rs. 1,165/- was issued by the opposite party. The complainant received for the subsequent period as well a highly inflated bill for a sum of Rs. 1,470/- showing the chargeable calls as 1,386. The complainant disputed this bill as well and filed a complaint with the opposite party. The opposite party, by its fetter dated 27.8.1993, informed the complainant that the investigation revealed that the telephone of the complainant and its connected equipments were found to be fault-free and in that view her both the complaints came to be rejected. The complainant, thereafter filed this complaint seeking to quash bath bills and collect the bill for the chargeable calls of 782 only.

2. The opposite party filed the version and averred that the investigation held on the complaints of the complainant revealed that the indoor and outdoor-equipments were functioning in a. fault-free condition and there was no fault of any nature which could have caused excess meter reading and so the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed.

3. During enquiry, the complainant filed her affidavit and got Ex. C-1 to C-19 marked in evidence. The opposite party did not produce any evidence.

4. The District Forum appreciating this material placed on recored by the parties held that telephone bi-monthly bill dated 1.1.1993, Ex-C-2 Is highly excessive and inflated and in that view quashed the said bill and directed the opposite party-the appellant to revise the bill disclosing the chargeable calls as 860 calls only and to refund the excess amount collected with interest thereon to the complainant The District Forum did not find the subsequent bill dated 1.3.1995, Ex.C-13, as inflated and highly excessive and in that view rejected the complaint of, the complainant in that regard.

5. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the representative of the respondent. We have perused the material on record.

6. The telephone in question of the complainant is installed in her office at Mangalore. It is not disputed that it has the S.T.D. facility. The complainant has neither averred in the complaint nor given the evidence that there was any malfunctioning of the meter of the telephone or any misuse of the telephone by the telephone employees. The complainant has not placed any material on record either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Department. The District Forum, in the absence of any such material, adopted the mode of computation on the basis of average and held that the bill dated 1.1.1993, that is Ex. C2, is highly excessive and inflated bill. The District Forum in this regard, at para 11 of its order observed thus:

7. “ 11 In the absen