Mr. V.N. Mishra, Member—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.1994 passed by the District Forum, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1/94.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's telephone No. 22262 is defective. It frequently gets cross-connected with other telephones resulting in false metering causing inflated bills. This defect has been persisting since several years and it has not been rectified by the opposite parties inspite of several complaints made by the complainant.

3. The complainant had filed a Complaint Case No. 63/91 before the District Forum, Gaya. It was mutually agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties during the pendency of the complaint case that average bills will be furnished by the opposite parties to the complainant and excess amount paid by the complainant, if any, will be adjusted in future bills. The District Forum passed consent order and directed the opposite parties for its compliance. The average bills for the six bi- monthly bills for the first year of the disputed bills for three years worked out to Rs. 409/-. But the opposite parties had realised Rs. 13,215/- from the complainant for bills starting from 21.10.1988 to 21.8.1991. The complainant had thus made excess payment of Rs. 6,667/- which was to be adjusted against his future bills. But the opposite parties wrongfully disconnected the telephone line of the complainant on 23.12.1993 in violation of the agreement and against the orders of the District Forum. Opposite party No. 2 refused to consider the two representations filed before him by the complainant. The complainant was subjected to lot of harassment and disgrace because of mala fide and vindictive disconnection.

4. The complainant therefore prayed that—

(a) his telephone connection may immediately be restored;

(b) the eight bills for Rs. 8,638/- sent by the opposite parties on 15.11.1993 pertaining to period from 11.8.1992 to 11.8.1993 may be corrected to Rs. 1,400/-. This amount may be adjusted against the excess amount of Rs. 6,667/- already paid by the complainant;

(c) the opposite parties may pay to him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused to him;

(d) the opposite parties may change the defective cable and remove the cross- connection problem.

(e) the opposite parties may not send wrong and inflated bills until the above defect is removed.

5. The opposite parties, on being noticed, filed written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. The allegation of cross- connection of his telephone with the other telephone and wrong metering was found to be baseless after investigations. The Gaya Exchange is computerised and the department found no fault in the system and in the metering of the telephone calls. The opposite parties had requested the complainant to pay the outstanding bills which were not disputed. The opposite parties once again wrote to the complainant on 15.11.1993 to clear the outstanding dues barring the disputed bills within one month. But the complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues as a result of which his telephone line was disconnected on 23.12.1993. Disconnection of telephone was never done for non-payment of bills involved in Complaint Case No. 63/91. The opposite parties further contended that they had preferred appeal against the order dated 9.9.1992 passed in that complaint case which was yet pending before the State Commission. The alleged excess payment made by the complainant according to the above impugned order cannot be adjusted against future bills. The complainant yet, if aggrieved, should have sought relief by invoking provisions under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act for arbitration. But the complainant without exhausting the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act hastily rushed to the Consumer Court. The Consumer Redressal Forums cannot adjudicate disputes in respect of inflated bills according to various decisions of Redres