JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—This complaint is about the excess billing of telephone. The complainant is a partner of complainant No. 2. The complainant was having a photo-studio at Bombay. The complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for a telephone bearing No. 665493. The complainant got the telephone installed at his Studio on 2-3-1978. The complainant had written a letter to the opposite party on 8-9-1978 requesting to disconnect the S.T.D. facility for his telephone. The opposite party by a letter dated 6-10-1978 informed the withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility in respect of his telephone No. 665493. Thereafter on 20-1-1981, the number of the telephone in question was changed to No. 6058493. However, the telephone bills used to be under the Old No. 665493 till 21-8-1989. According to complainant his telephone bills never exceeded the amount of Rs. 1,000/- with an average of Rs. 600 in a billing period. The complainant placed on record the statement of bills from 1-12-1978 to 21-6-1989 at Exh. 'D'. The complainant further alleged that the bill dated 21-8-1989 for the billing period 1-6-1989 to 1-8-1989 was for Rs. 576 including trunk call charges. The next bill dated 15-6-1989 for the billing period 18-3-1989 to 18-5-1989 was for Rs. 22,371/- and subsequent bill dated 15-8-1989 for the billing period of 18-5-1989 to 18-7-1989 for Rs. 36,356/-. The complainant alleged that he was asked to pay for the aforesaid bills for the retrospective period. The complainant also again received two bills dated 21-6-1989 and 21-8-1989. The complainant, therefore, wrote a letter to the opposite party dated 6-9-1989 alleging that the aforesaid bills are excessive in absence of S.T.D. facility. The complainant disputed the correctness of the said two bills marked 'O' Exh. E, E-1, E-2 and E-3. The complainant further alleged that before he could recover from the shock, the third excessive bill dated 1-10-1989 for the billing period 18-7-1989 to 18-9-1989 received by him was for Rs. 1,13,233/-. It is at Exh. 'G'. The total of the aforesaid three bills show complainant in arrears of Rs. 1,71,980/-. The opposite party vide its letter dated 6-11-1989 replied to the complainant that he used the S.T.D. facility frequently. Thereafter, the complainant's telephone was disconnected in September, 1989 for nonpayment of the aforesaid bills, without following the usual procedure. 2. 1,13,233/-. It is at Exh. 'G'. The total of the aforesaid three bills show complainant in arrears of Rs. 1,71,980/-. The opposite party vide its letter dated 6-11-1989 replied to the complainant that he used the S.T.D. facility frequently. Thereafter, the complainant's telephone was disconnected in September, 1989 for nonpayment of the aforesaid bills, without following the usual procedure. 2. The opposite party filed its written version dated 4-9-1991 and denied the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. It has been submitted by the opposite party that the S.T.D. facility in respect of the complainant's phone was functioning during the disputed billing period. It is also submitted that the unaddressed bills dated 15-6-1989 and 15-8-1989 are correct bills for the telephone No. 6058493 which belongs to the complainant. It is further submitted that regular computerised bills were not issued during the period 18-3-1989 to 18-7-1989 for the reason of the area transfer. It is also submitted that the Telephone Bill dated 21-6-1989 and 21-8-1989 for Telephone No. 665493 are not the bills issued to the complainants. It is also submitted that the complainant's first complaint dated 16-9-1989 has been filed after telephone was disconnected on 7-9-1989: It is further submitted that the complainant used the S.T.D. facility for making telephone to Ahmedabad against Telephone No. 0272811271 of Rasikbhai. It is also denied that there was any possibility of tapping and faults in respect of the complainant's telephone. 3. We have heard Shri I.R. Ladiwala, Advocate for the complainant and Ms. S.I. Shah, Advocate for the opposite party. We have also perused the relevant record. 4. Heavy reliance was placed by the opposite party on their record of metered calls. Which is filed at Exh. I and II. The record shows the reading of complainant's former telephone number and also the subsequent telephone number. Exh. II makes a very interesting reading. It refers the S.T.D. calls statement for period ending 18-3-1989 of complainant's telephone No. 6058493 with effect from 31-3-1989. A perusal of the statement shows that on 31-1-1989 eight S.T.D. calls were made from the complainant's Telephone No. 60585932 to only one No. 0272378531 at Ahmedabad. The time of these calls is also noted at Column No. 3. It shows 8 calls were made within very short intervals of few minutes. Similarly, on the same day, calls at Sr. Nos. The time of these calls is also noted at Column No. 3. It shows 8 calls were made within very short intervals of few minutes. Similarly, on the same day, calls at Sr. Nos. 10 to 17 (Exh.II) at the same number were made at Ahmedabad with intervals of few minutes. On the same Exh. Sr. No. 24, to 46, calls were made at the same Number at Ahmedabad on 1st and 2nd February, 1989 with the intervals of few minutes. It is very difficult for us to believe the correctness of the statement looking to the nature of the calls made at the same telephone No. at Ahmedabad with intervals of few minutes. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the statement at Exh. II is correct, then the charges for these telephone calls cannot be attributed to the complainant since he had in the year 1978 requested the opposite party to disconnect the S.T.D. facility for his telephone. The complainant has placed on record at Exh. VI a letter dated 6-10-1978 from the opposite party duly signed by one Shri U.D. Vyas, Assistant Engineer intimating the complainant that his telephone dialling (S.T.D.) facility has been withdrawn with effect from 5-10-1978. In view of this letter from the opposite party, the S.T.D. calls on the complainant's telephone to Ahmedabad and other places shown in Exh.II of the opposite party cannot be attributed to the complainant. The complainant is a petty photographer and he has stated in his complaint that his business has been very small and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the complainant had the necessity to make such huge calls with the intervals of few minutes. A perusal of the statement of S.T.D. calls at Exh. II exhibits a sorry state of affairs in showing the reading of Telephone calls with the S.T.D. facility. We are, therefore, fully convinced that despite the bar of S.T.D. facility in the year 1978, the complainant was made liable to pay the telephone bills for using the S.T.D. facility in the year 1989. The suffering of the complainant does not come to an end by merely receiving the excess bills, but he had to face the disconnection of his telephone facility without making proper enquiry regarding his complaint. The suffering of the complainant does not come to an end by merely receiving the excess bills, but he had to face the disconnection of his telephone facility without making proper enquiry regarding his complaint. No other proof is necessary to show the utter negligence in the service of the opposite party than the charging of the complainant such huge bills in respect of S.T.D. facility of which he did not avail. There may be variety of reasons for showing excess billing in this case, but certainly the complainant cannot be made liable to make payments for such excessive bills. 5. Ms. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party unsuccessfully tried to explain that the telephone numbers from Ahmedabad mentioned in Exh. II of the opposite party are the numbers of complainant's relatives and, therefore, the S.T.D. facility was used by the complainant, although it was withdrawn by the Department. The argument is fallacious and untenable unless the opposite party repudiates its letter dated 6-10-1978 showing the withdrawal of S.T.D. facility in respect of the complainant's telephone. It cannot lie in the mouth of the opposite party to submit that despite the disconnection of S.T.D. facility the complainant used the S.T.D. facility. If that is the argument, then the question arises as to when the S.T.D. in respect of the complainant's telephone was withdrawn and why he was allowed to use S.T.D. facility without the permission of the opposite party? It was also tried to be argued that the parties can use the S.T.D. facility by tapping the telephones. In our view, all these arguments are nothing but a pitiable attempt on the part of opposite party to justify its deficiency in the service. In the result we allow this complaint. In our view, this is a typical case of excess billing and the complainant cannot be made liable to make the payment of the S.T.D. calls which he could not make due to the withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility by the opposite party in the year 1978. The opposite party has utterly failed in establishing by convincing evidence that the S.T.D. facility was made available to complainant to his Telephone No. 6058493 after its withdrawal. The complainant has claimed in his complaint application the restoration of the telephone lines No. 6058493 and 8557101. He claimed that the telephone bills dated 15-6-1989, 15-8-1989 and 1-10-1989 amounting to Rs. The opposite party has utterly failed in establishing by convincing evidence that the S.T.D. facility was made available to complainant to his Telephone No. 6058493 after its withdrawal. The complainant has claimed in his complaint application the restoration of the telephone lines No. 6058493 and 8557101. He claimed that the telephone bills dated 15-6-1989, 15-8-1989 and 1-10-1989 amounting to Rs. 1,71,980 be declared as bad in law. The complainant also claimed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,71,980/- be either waived or the opposite party be injuncted from recovering it. The complainant did not claim any compensation. In our view, the complainant has been very reasonable in his approach to his Commission. As regards the disconnection of his telephone facility we find that his telephone lines were disconnected for non payment of excessive bills. The opposite party could not take this drastic step unless the excessive bill was split up and the complaint of the complainant about excessive billing was investigated under the rules. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant deserves reconnection of his both telephone lines. We are also of the view that the complainant cannot be made to pay the bills shown in Ex. II as he could not have used the S.T.D. facility since it was withdrawn. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not liable to pay the excessive bills in question. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 6. We hereby quash the bills in question viz. Exh. E, E.I, E.II and E.3 for Rs. 1,71.980/- and direct the M.T.N.L. O.P. 1 to prepare a fresh bills for the period covered by the aforesaid bills in consultation with the respondent who should pay revised bills without delay. The complainant also be paid the amount of Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The telephone connection of the complainant in respect of his phone Nos. 6858493 and 8557101 be reconnected within a month from the receipt of this order. Order accordingly. *****