J. N. Sarma, Member- This is an appeal preferred by Dr. Gokul Bora, the appellant herein and complainant in the original case against the judgments dated 14,11.95 and 20.3.98 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, (for shqrjt- District Forum) in CP Case No 178 of 1994 and 5 pf 1997-(Misc) respectively. The General Manager, Kamrup Telecom District, Guwahati and another are respondents in this appeal. 2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows: Complainant Dr. Gokul Bora (appellant herein) filed a complaint in the District Forum with a prayer for quashing the telephone bill dated 1.1.94 against telephone No.546879. This is the ten bi-monthly with a whopping demand of Rs. 14,624 against call charges wherein there were no call charge at all in the previous bill dated 1.11.92, 1.1.93, 1.7.93 (A) 1.7.93 (B), 1.9.93 and mere Rs. 407, Rs. 507 and Rs. 11 only in the bills dated 1.3.93, 1.5,93 and 1.1.94 respectively. After hearing both the parties the District Forum disposed of the complaint by judgment dated 14.11.95 advising the complainant to lodge a complaint with the Telecom Department for redressal of his grievances. The complainant/appellant, then, wrote to the then TDM (now General Manager), Kamrup Telecom District on two occasions requesting him to investigate the matter and intimate the results thereof. The respondents/OPs vide their letter dated 25.9.97 intimated him that they had cancelled local call charges of Rs. 9,800 out of Rs. 14,624 of the aforesaid bill. The appellant was not intimated on what basis and after what kind of investigation the payable amount of Rs.4,824 was arrived at. Thereafter on April 11, 1997, the appellant filed a contempt petition before the District Forum praying for a direction to the respondents/OPs to furnish the result of this investigation to the Forum within a definite time frame and reduce the call charges on the basis of the average of six previously bi-monthly bills as provided for in the Telecom Rules. This misc petition was dismissed by the District Forum by their judgment dated 20.3.98 holding that the petition was infructuous and it does not fall within the purview of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Being aggrieved the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Charu Mahanta, learned authorised representative of the appellant and Shri D. Sur, learned counsel for the respondents. Being aggrieved the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Charu Mahanta, learned authorised representative of the appellant and Shri D. Sur, learned counsel for the respondents. We have perused the memorandum of appeal and other relevant papers filed by the appellant. We have gone through the complaint, contempt petition, written statement of OPs, both the judgments of the District Forum and other relevant papers in the original case record. We have taken into consideration the relevant Rules, Departmental circulars etc on excess metering complaints and connected matters, the photo copies of which have been furnished today by learned authorized representative of the appellant. Besides, we have relied on the decisions and observations of Hon'ble National Commission in their order reported in (1996) I CPJ 49 (NC), referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Before going into the principles laid down by National Commission hi the matter of 'excess billing' complaints we would like to have a look at the impugned judgments of learned District Forum. In fact the first judgment dated 14.11.95 is a simple one whereby the District Forum disposed of the complaint with an advice to the complainant to lodge complaint with the appropriate authorities of Telecom Department. We do not think the appellant should have any grievance against this order. There was no direction in this order to the OPs (respondents herein) to do some specified act and therefore the question of contempt for non-compliance does not arise at all. In the meantime the OPs cancelled the bill and granted a rebate of Rs.9,800 towards local call charges. In our opinion the District Forum rightly held in their judgment dated 20.3.98 that the relief claimed by the complainant has become infructuous. We quote the relevant portion from Forum's judgment dated 20.3.98 on the contempt petition. “It has come to our notice that in the CPC No. 178 of 1994 we issued no any direction to the OPs. In disposing of the comblaint, we, only gave liberty to the complainant to approach the Telecom Department with a complaint for redressal of his grievance. Admittedly no direction was given to the' OPs to complete their investigation and communicate the result of their investigation and communicate the result of their investigation to the complainant within a definite time frame. In disposing of the comblaint, we, only gave liberty to the complainant to approach the Telecom Department with a complaint for redressal of his grievance. Admittedly no direction was given to the' OPs to complete their investigation and communicate the result of their investigation and communicate the result of their investigation to the complainant within a definite time frame. The question of violation of the Forum's order by the OPs as such does not arise in the case. We, therefore, find that the petition does not fall under the purview of section 27 of the CP Act and the same is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.” We entirely agree with this finding of the District Forum and do not find any illegality or infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgments. In view thereof the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. However, it would be pertinent to discuss here the principle laid down by the National Commission in 'excess bill' cases to which our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents. The decision and observations of the Commission on the subject are the settled law so far as the Consumer Forums are concerned. This Commission is, no doubt, bound by the said decisions. It would be appropriate to quote here from the order of the National Commission in Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa vs. Mrs Sheela HN Gaunehar reported in (1996) 1 CPJ 49 (NC). “The District Forum has directed the petitioner to calculate the telephone bills for the period from 25.1.92 to 25.9.92 on the basis of average of past one year preceding 26.1.92 and this in our view is not legally permissible. This Commission has separately held that the Redressal Forums are not legally justified to do so unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering requirement was defective or there has been tampering with or misuse of telephone by the employees of the Department.” In Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala vs. Pran Nath Mahajan,(1993) 1 CPJ 99 the National Commission held : “It is a matter of public knowledge that STD facility has often been misutilised on large scale by third parties in collusion with P and T staff. But unless there is atleast circumstantial evidence to probabilities such collusion having taken place in a particular case, we cannot doubt correctness of bills merely on the basis of suspicion. We have repeatedly held that the Consumer Redressal Forums will not be legally justified in taking over the function of estimating by application of the rule of thumb the precise number of calls made unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by some unauthorised person in collusion with the employees of the Department, particularly in cases where a subscriber has the STD facility - See District Manager. Telephones vs. Niti Sarani (1991) CPJ 48 Revision Petition No. 67 of 1999. Again in Telecom District Manager vs. MS Mukherjee, Revision Petition No. 111 of 1990 we held that it was not legally permissible to take the average number of calls in the previous bills for a given period as the basis of ascertaining what should be fixed on the reasonable number of chargeable calls in the billing period. In the present case there is neither direct nor even circumstantial evidence to show that there was probability of such misuse of the telephone.” 7. In the instant case all on a sudden a bill of whopping demand of Rs. 14,624 was served on the appellant/complainant and subsequently when he lodged complaint with the respondents a rebate of Rs.9,800 was given after investigation. Appellant is rightly agitated to know on what basis the bill was reduced to Rs. 4,824. It appears that there is not much transparency in what has been done by the Department. In our opinion the Telecommunication Department should give a satisfactory explanation. It may be advisable to have some independent agency, may be within the Department or outside, to investigate such cases of excess billing etc to the satisfaction of all concerned. Most of the subscribers are just layman so far as modern telecommunication technology is concerned. It is not possible for them to provide even circumstantial evidence to show that the metering equipment is defective on there has been tempering with or misuse of telephone by the employees of the Department as required under the law laid down by the National Commission in their aforesaid orders. It is not possible for them to provide even circumstantial evidence to show that the metering equipment is defective on there has been tempering with or misuse of telephone by the employees of the Department as required under the law laid down by the National Commission in their aforesaid orders. The consumers'activities may take up the matter of creating such investigating agency with the Govt. Be that as it may, we find that in the present case there is neither direct nor even circumstantial evidence to show that there was probability of misuse of the telephone or any defects in the metering equipment. In view thereof there is no scope to interfere in this case by the Commission to give away relief in the matter of alleged excess billing. Relying on the decisions of the National Commission referred to above we are inclined to hold that the appellant/ complainant is liable to pay the reduced amount of the alleged 'excess bill' after grant of the rebate by the respondents. The aforesaid decisions of the National Commission are no doubt, applicable in the present case. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and no interference from this Commission is called for. 9. In the result both the judgments dated 14.11.95 and 20.3.98 of the District Forum are upheld and the appeal is dismissed. We however, do not pass any order as to costs.