JUDGMENT Admittedly, there has been sudden spurt in the telephone bills, in dispute, issued by the Telecommunication Department to the respondent/complainant, as she had been receiving the telephone bills upto November, 1997 of not more than Rs. 250/-. Even for the period from 16.11.1998 to 15.1.1999, a bill amounting to Rs. 762/- was raised by the Telecommunication Department, whereas the telephone of the respondent/complainant stood disconnected on 15.12.1998. The respondent/complainant despite verbal requests has also submitted representation against the sudden spurt in her telephone bill, but the procedure as prescribed under the law has not been followed by the Appellant-Telecommunication Department while looking into the matter of such spurt and excess metering. We find that there is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to show that the instructions, circulars and Acts of the Government of India on the subject have been complied with. There is nothing to show that meter reading has been taken every fortnight and that they have identified all the subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt and in case of such sudden spurt being noticed, placing the telephone line on observation and deputing responsible staff to the subscribers premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurt. Nowhere has it been stated either in the affidavit or in the reply that responsible staff was deputed to subscribers premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurt. Again, the Department has not served a fortnights notice to the subscriber cautioning her about the abnormal use of the telephone under the Government of Indias rules, circulars etc. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the STD facility with dynamic locking has been misused by the subscriber, her family members, relatives and friends as alleged. 2. This case is squarely covered by our judgment in a case titled as Sub Divisional Officer (Telecom) & Ann Vs. Gurbachan Singh, Appeal No. 87 of 1998 decided on 22.9.1998 and the District Forum has rightly cancelled the bills, in dispute. 2. This case is squarely covered by our judgment in a case titled as Sub Divisional Officer (Telecom) & Ann Vs. Gurbachan Singh, Appeal No. 87 of 1998 decided on 22.9.1998 and the District Forum has rightly cancelled the bills, in dispute. However, the District Forum instead of ordering to issue the bills for the period, in dispute, on the basis of average bills for six months preceding to 16.5.1998 as directed, should have ordered to issue fresh bills to the respondent/complainant on the basis of highest bill issued to her in the last six months preceding to 16.5.1998, as the decision to order the payment of the disputed bills on the basis of preceding average bills is inconsistent with the decision of the National Commission. It is accordingly ordered that the Telecommunication Department will issue fresh bills to the respondent/complainant for the period, in dispute, on the basis of highest bill issued to her in the last six months preceding to 16.5.1998 instead of on the basis ot average bills as directed by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum stands modified accordingly. The relief of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- shall continue to be in force. Since the telephone has been disconnected because of inflated bills given by the Telecommunication Department, the telephone is required to be restored within one week. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.