Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member — This Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 9.9.94 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Commission at Lucknow upholding the order dated 4.2.92 passed by the District Forum, Moradabad allowing the complaint and directing Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad to revise the bills of the complainant of 2.8.91, 23.9.91 and 1.11.91 keeping in view the bills of past one year and of the abovesaid bills and whichever higher amounts come, 10% be added. The State Commission, however, modified the relief granted by the District Forum to the complainant and ordered (i) the bills pertaining to the period from August, 1990 to the date of disconnection including the bill of Rs. 986/- (paid) were quashed, (ii) that the rebate in rent of telephone during the aforesaid period be given, (iii) that the telephone be reconnected within 30 days, (iv) a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was granted and cost of Rs. 2,000/- in the appeal.

2. We may notice the facts in brief. Telephone No. 6349 had been working for Shri Virender Kumar, complainant, installed at his shop with STD facility. He made a complaint before the District Forum. Moradabad alleging that his telephone bearing No. 6349 which had been running out of order for the past one year had not been put to order despite oral and written complaints and instead the complainant received bill of 4.3.91 for Rs. 4,286/- and of 4.5.91 for Rs. 2,279/- and that these bills being exorbitant and excessive were not paid with the result that the telephone was disconnected. The complainant amended his complaint and disputed bill dated 2.8.91 for Rs.6,143/-, bill dated 23.9.91 for Rs. 12,701/- bill dated 1.11.91 for Rs. 2493/- and bill dated 4.1.92 for Rs. 200/-. On being noticed the opposite party stated that the telephone of the complainant was working smoothly and there was no defect either in the instrument or in the meter and that the bills given to the complainant were as per metered calls. It was, however, pleaded that an ad interim rebate for bill dated 4.3.91 was given and the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 986/- and the balance was kept under dispute and that the other bills are pleaded as correct.

3. The District Forum by a sketchy Order allowed the complaint and granted the reliefs noticed above. Both the parties were aggrieved and filed cross appeals before the State Commission against the order dated 4.9.92. The State Commission went into the evidence on record and held that it had been proved that the telephone of the complainant had remained dead and defective since August, 1990 as a result thereof telephone service had not been made available to him in terms of quality, nature and manner of performance and he was deprived of the telephone service besides bills of inflated amount were being issued to him continuously since 4.3.91 to harass and torture him. The State Commission also found that the complainant by producing indirect and circumstantial evidence satisfactorily proved that the excessive bills were issued to him due to defective meter of the telephone or defect in the telephone line. The State Commission also held that due to continuous disruption of telephone service of the complainant and disconnection, his business was affected and his goodwill also damaged and he had to suffer mental agony and physical strain. The State Commission granted reliefs as noticed above.

4. We have heard Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein and Mr. R.S. Verma, Advocate for the respondent-complainant and have gone through the record. We will proceed on the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that it had satisfactorily been proved on the record that the excessive bills were issued to the complainant due to defective meter of telephone or defect in telephone line. The Telecommunication Department had also taken plea in its written version that when there is a defect in meter of the telephone or