ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the appellant, Telecom Department was asked by the learned Forum to cancel 3200 trunk calls from the bills of the complainant and issue fresh bills. 2. The complainant had filed the complaint with allegations that his three bills are incorrect because he has not done these trunk calls. The opposite party contested the petition and alleged that the trunk calls have been made by the complainant himself. The opposite party has also given a list of such calls made from the telephone of the complainant. 3. Without giving any detailed finding and the reasons, the learned Forum directed the Telephone Department to cancel 3,200 trunk calls. It is not known on what basis it passed this order. He should have cancelled all the trunk calls, he should have cancelled 1000 and 2000 trunk calls only out of his whims. Any such jurisdiction or authority or power has not been given to the District Forums to rectify and modify the bills out of his own discretion. 4. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that there was any defect in the meter of the complainant. There was no allegation whatsoever that his telephone has been misused by some officials or somebody else. 5. It has specifically been held in the ruling reported in I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR Page 102, The District Manager v. Niti Saran, “According to Section 14(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, complaints from consumers regarding inflated bills issued by the Telephone Department. The Telephone Department rebuts the suggestion of inflated billing. The manner in which the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums should dispose of the complaints. These Forums are not legally justified in estimating by application of a rule of thumb the precise number of calls made and the charges, therefore, in a particular period of time, unless there is adequate evidence to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by the employees of the Department.” In the ruling reported in II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC), Divisional Manager Telephones v. Madhu Enterprises, it has been held that “it is the Telecommunication Department which maintains the meters regarding calls made from a particular telephone. It is the responsibility of the “Telecommunication Department to ensure that the metering equipment is efficient and that there is no incorrect metering regarding the calls. Unless, therefore, it can be established that the metering equipment is defective or has been manipulated, the calls metered for a particular telephone by the Department would form the proper basis of billing. It is not open to the Consumer Forums to determine arbitrarily the maximum number of calls that ought to be metered for the purpose of billing in respect of a particular telephone number.” 6. The complainant himself is a Lawyer as well as a man of social service so it cannot be said that the bills were inflated for a person of his status. 7. The order passed by the learned Forum is arbitrary and without any substance and is to be set aside. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.4.1993 is hereby set aside. The complaint is also dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.