Y. Krishan, Member ( 1 ) THE Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the older dated 22nd March, 1990 of the State Commission. Bihar, Patna. raising important questions of law. (A) Whether the Formus under the Consumer Protection Act have jurisdiction to entertain and decide disputes which arc coveren by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1881 : (B) Whether a complaint involving a technical question concerning meter reading and mechanical faults ought not to be dealt with by an Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and having knowledge of the various mechanisms of meter reading instead of by a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act which may not posses the necessary technical expertise concerning meter reading ; and (C) Whether the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act over-ride the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1881. These question of law have been adjudicated unpon Secton 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1881, that it was not necessary that disputes relatings to meter readings can only be handled by an Atbitrator having techinical knowledge of mechanisms of meter reading, and that the Indian Telegraph Act does not oust the operation of Consumer Protection Act in such cases. ( 2 ). Under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer protection Act. the jurisdiction of the National Commission in tevision is severely limited. The National Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute decided by the State Commission wherr the State Commisson has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or baa acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity In other wolds, the jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited the disputes where there has been wrongful, illgal and improper exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irrgularity. As such the Commission is unable to entertain this Revision Petition ( 3 ) HOWEVER, before we part with this case we murt observe that we feel disturbed by the fact that the order of the District Forums and the state Commission in this case are besed on the conclusion that the Bill in question was highly inflated and this finding was based on an examination of the previous bill in respect of the particular telephone concerned. As the State Commission oberved or its order "an analysis of all the bill filled in this case would give an impression that the Bill in question could not be correct as it was against the calling pattern of the complainant-respondent. The previous bill show. that the respondent was in the habit of of making restraned calls and this is why the bili rarely accded Rs. 1,000. 00 " So the State Comminnion coneluded that the District Forum seemed to be correct in holding that the bill in question was not drawn up correctly, that either it was inflated or there was something wrong in the mechanism. ( 4 ). There is no evidence to show that the metering equipment was defective or that it had been tampered with or manipulated so as to inflate the bills. It is also not correct to assume that there has to be a pattern of making telephone calls from a telephone; the number of telephone calls made by a subscriber can fluctuate considerably for many reasons. The subscriber in this particular case. the consumer is a commercial concern and there is every likelihood that the telephone calls in a period of time may fluctuate: widely. It may become necessary to make a fair and just determination of the calls made on the basis of calling pattern over a period of time, only if it is established that the metering equipment is defective, or has been tampered with or manipulated, tesulting in the bill being inflaled. It is true that one cannot altogether rule out the possibility of such tampering or manipulation of metering equipment and the consumer must be protected against such malpractices. It is however, not open to the Consumer Forums to base a finding of the bills hauing been inflated merely on the basis of suspicion and it will be not right to assume that there wes something wrong with the mechanism with evidence and without identifyiing the precise defect in that mechanism. We cannot go by our subjective impressions about the reasonableness or otherwise of a bill which is based on readings from a a mechanical equipment. With these observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed.