JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—This complaint is jointly filed by the complainants M/s. West Coast Industries and by Bombay Telephone Users' Association alleging excessive billing by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), Bombay. 2. The short facts are that the complainant No. 1, M/s. West Coast Industries had hired the services of opposite party, the M.T.N.L. For a Fax machine bearing No. 341153 installed on 10-5-1988. Thereafter, the Fax machine number was changed and new No. 8550965 was given to the complainant. The change in the number was effected on 23-10-1989. The complainant alleged that his earlier bills for the Fax machine for a billing period used to be within the range of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The last bill for the period 1-9-1989 to 1-11-1989 was Rs. 28,986/-. In short, there was no abnormal variation in the bill between the period 19-5-1988 till 23-10-1989. The complainant alleged that the bill dated 4-3-1990 for the said Fax machine was received for Rs. 94,994/- for the billing period 23-10-1989 to 18-12-1989. It is marked as Exh. 'D'. The next bill for the billing period dated 18-12-1989 to 15-2-1990 was for Rs. 1,32,480. It is at Exh. 'F'. The complainant raised the dispute with the opposite party by alleging excessive billing vide letter dated 9-3-1990 as regards both the bills. In response to these two letters, the opposite party provisionally split the aforesaid bills to Rs. 28,550/- keeping the balance of Rs. 66,444/- in abeyance pending the investigation by the Divisional Engineer. A copy of that letter is at Exh. (I). The said split bill was paid by the complainant on 23-4-1990 with a forwarding letter. A copy is at Exh. 'K'. The complainant also received the third excessive bill dated 16-5-1990 for the billing period of 15-2-1990 to 31-3-1990 (45 days) for Rs. 85,454/-. It is at Exh. 'N'. The complainant further alleged that in order to convince the opposite party about their excessive billing, two parallel records of their FAX machine and TELEX machine were sent to the opposite party for purposes of comparison. It is further alleged that the M.T.N.L. without making proper investigation disconnected the FAX machine of the complainant on 15-10-1990. The complainant further alleged that there was no response for his representations made to the General Manager, M.T.N.L. and, therefore, he was forced to file a suit for injunction in the City Civil Court. It is further alleged that the M.T.N.L. without making proper investigation disconnected the FAX machine of the complainant on 15-10-1990. The complainant further alleged that there was no response for his representations made to the General Manager, M.T.N.L. and, therefore, he was forced to file a suit for injunction in the City Civil Court. An injunction was granted on 30-11-1990 which was vacated on 7-3-1991. Thereafter, the complainant presented this complaint on 10-7-1991. 3. In response to the notice under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party filed its written version. In the written version the opposite party denied the allegations of excessive billing. However, the opposite party raised the objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Commission on the ground that the bills in question were challenged by the complainant in a Civil suit and, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable. 4. We heard Shri Radhakrishnan and Mr. Gai for the complainant and Ms. Shah, Advocate for the opposite party. 5. We will first deal with the objection about the jurisdiction. Ms. Shah contended that since the complainant had approached the City Civil Court, Bombay in S. No. 8766 of 1990 as regards the excessive bills in question, this Court cannot adjudicate this complaint. We have perused the order dated 7-3-1991 passed by the learned Judge in the aforesaid Civil Suit. The plaint was returned for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper Court. No finding was given by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on merits as regards the claim in that suit. In view of this circumstance, we find that the objection about the maintainability of this complaint for want of jurisdiction is not available in any way since the aforesaid civil suit was not decided on merits. The objection regarding the jurisdiction, therefore, must fail. The complaint is as regards the deficiency in the service of opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence this Commission is competent to decide this consumer dispute. 6. As regards the merits of this complaint, the opposite party merely denied that there was any excess billing in this case. No counter-affidavit was filed by the opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant in this complaint. On the other hand, the complainant has demonstrated on the basis of the record that this is a case of excessive billing. As regards the merits of this complaint, the opposite party merely denied that there was any excess billing in this case. No counter-affidavit was filed by the opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant in this complaint. On the other hand, the complainant has demonstrated on the basis of the record that this is a case of excessive billing. It is not in dispute that the complainant was paying the average bill for a billing period between Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- prior to the date of excess bills. Even the last bill (prior to the excess bills in dispute) for the period between 1-9-1989 to 1-11-1989 was only for Rs. 28,986/-. All of a sudden subsequent bill between 23-10-1989 to 18-12-1989, rose to Rs. 94,944/-. The second successive bill swelled to Rs. 1,32,480/-. Thus, the rise in the complainant's bill was more than three times the amount of the previous bills. No particular instances to warrant the rise in the complainant's business to result in such large bills are either remotely suggested or stated as the reason by opposite party. There is only stock answer from opposite party that the bills are preferred on the basis of meter reading. But we are not getting the satisfactory answer from the opposite party as regards the outcome of investigation made on the basis of complainant's report. No satisfactory explanation to account for the rise in the bills is coming forth from the opposite party. On the contrary it has been amply demonstrated by the complainant that his TELEX Bills and other Bills do not show corresponding rise. According to the complainant, if his business in relation to FAX Machine had increased then the corresponding increase must also be reflected in the bills of TELEX. The complainant had submitted to the opposite party vide his letter dated 31-3-1990 the bills of FAX and TELEX installation from his shop for purposes of showing the rise in business for ascertaining the mistake in the calculation of the bill. But it seems no consideration was given to those bills during investigation. It seems that the opposite party did not take the said documents into consideration, and did not make any efforts to investigate the complainant's grievance about the excess billing. But it seems no consideration was given to those bills during investigation. It seems that the opposite party did not take the said documents into consideration, and did not make any efforts to investigate the complainant's grievance about the excess billing. The opposite party vide its letter dated 21-4-1990 in response to the complainants' letter dated 9-3-1990 informed the complainant that action is being taken to investigate his complaint regarding the excess billing. The final reply was sent by the opposite party to the complainant vide letter dated 28-7-1990. In the said reply it is stated by the opposite party that the necessary investigation has since been completed by Exchange Authorities and there was no need for the revision of the disputed bill and reiterated the demand of money shown in the disputed bills. It was further stated that the disputed bill of Rs. 66,444/- be paid within 15 days to avoid disconnection. The complainant attacked this letter on two grounds. The first ground of attack is that the aforesaid letter dated 28-7-1990 is a cyclostyled letter in which the gaps were filled in by hand. The second ground of attack is that the letter demonstrated utter negligence on the part of the opposite party to attend to the grievance of the consumer. We have critically examined the said letter and find that the reply was sent to complainant in routine course without understanding the complainant's grievance about excessive billing. It seems to be the usual practice of the opposite party to inform the consumers as regards their complaints in the form of a cyclostyled letter. We also find that the said form is prepared by the opposite party for sending replies to all complainant by only filling the gaps. In the instant case, there is no reference to the documents sent by complainant and no mention about the finding of the investigation as regards the reported complaint of complainant. In fact, when there is a mention in the aforesaid letter, "the following is the report of investigation", it is obvious that the report should have been enclosed with the letter for the information of the consumer. It is the natural expectation of a subscriber of Telephone services that he should know the cause of excess billing so that he can avoid it in future. A consumer has a right to know the result of investigation. It is the natural expectation of a subscriber of Telephone services that he should know the cause of excess billing so that he can avoid it in future. A consumer has a right to know the result of investigation. The M.T.N.L. cannot keep the subscriber in dark about the out come of an investigation regarding excess billing. But no report of investigation was attached with the aforesaid letter. There is no mention in the aforesaid letter that the previous record of the bills as regards the FAX and TELEX which was submitted by the complainant dated 31-3-1990 was ever considered by the opposite party. The contents of the aforesaid letter are in a most casual manner and without application of mind as regards the complainant's allegations. The complainant, therefore, submitted that the opposite party was negligent in rendering the proper service to the complainant as regards the cause of his excessive bill. According to the complainant, the excess billing is more than 100% compared to his previous bills. The complainant further alleged that the entire case was discussed by him at length with the Accounts Officer of the opposite party. On 22-3-1991, he addressed a complaint in writing to the General Manager of M.T.N.L. to review the whole case for getting justice. But neither of them reviewed the case and sent mechanical answer to the complainant vide letter dated 28-7-1990 which does not reasonably show that it was prepared keeping in mind the grievance of the complainant. In our view, the deficiency in service as regards the hiring of telephone service not only includes wrong excessive billing but also includes the failure to communicate the cause of excess billing. A consumer has a right to know the cause of excess billing with a view to avoid its recurrence in future. It may also minimise the complaints of excess billing if a consumer is convinced that he is responsible for the same. Considering the reply of opposite party contained in the cyclostyled letter dated 27-7-1990 we are of the view that the investigation made by the opposite party as regards the complaint of complainant is perfunctory and not binding on the complainant. 7. The complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. Considering the reply of opposite party contained in the cyclostyled letter dated 27-7-1990 we are of the view that the investigation made by the opposite party as regards the complaint of complainant is perfunctory and not binding on the complainant. 7. The complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. It is the case of complainant that he was regularly paying the bills of his FAX and TELEX communications, since 1989 and had no complaint whatsoever till he received the first excessive bill dated 4-3-1990, which is at Exh. 'D'. Further the complainant has placed before the opposite party relevant and convincing documentary evidence to warrant the review of the excessive bills but the opposite party sent a mechanical reply and did not disclose the report of investigation. There is, therefore, reasonable inference that the bills sent to the complainant were not correct and reflect excessive billing. In our view, it is incumbent upon the opposite party to take cognizance of a complaint from a consumer about excessive billing and make proper investigation and intimate the consumer about the cause of excess billing. In this case, merely a show is made to investigate the complaint. When a subscriber hires the services of the opposite party, an efficient and effective service regarding the telephone facility is reasonably expected. It therefore, presumes correct billing. When the correctness or otherwise of a telephone bill is disputed by a consumer, the M.T.N.L. is bound to make honest and sincere attempts to investigate the grievance of a consumer and to convey him the result of investigation duly supported by a copy of report and documents if any. Failure on the part of M.T.N.L. to make proper and correct investigation in a complaint of excessive billing from a subscriber of Telephone services and persisting to recover the dues from subscribers on such bills resulting in disconnection for its nonpayment amounts to deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. We are not convinced in this case about the bona fide attempts of the efforts made by the M.T.N.L. to investigate the grievance of the complainant. The complainant had to pay huge bills under the threat of disconnection. According to complainant, he paid Rs. The complainant had to pay huge bills under the threat of disconnection. According to complainant, he paid Rs. 1,65,650/- on 21-5-1991 by obtaining over draft from his banker after the payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. According to complainant, he was forced to obtain the loan for the payment of excessive bills in question to avoid disconnection of telephone facility which was bound to affect his business. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case where excess billing is demonstrated by the complainant. We also find that the opposite party was negligent in not making the correct and proper investigation and sent mechanical routine reply to the complainant which caused loss to the complainant. We further find that the complainant has proved his allegations on the basis of the documentary evidence. We, therefore, find that the complainant has also proved the loss suffered by him by obtaining loan to pay excess bills hence complainant deserves compensation. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER We hereby quash the bills dated 4-3-1990 for Rs. 94,994, Ex. 'D' for Rs. 1,32,480/- at Ex. 'F' dated 16-5-1990 for Rs. 83,454/- at Ex. 'N' which are the subject matter of this complaint and direct the O.P. to prepare fresh bills after re-investigation in place of the aforesaid bills in question in consultation with the complainant who should pay the revised fresh bills without delay to the opposite party. The opposite party also shall pay to complainant interest at the rate of 18% p.a. over the payment of split bill of Rs. 28,550 and Rs. 5,000/- as the amount of taken compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in the service. Order accordingly. *****