JUDGMENT Sri Surendra Kumar, Acting President— This is an appeal against the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the District Forum, Almora whereby the complainant was allowed a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.2.1998 the complainant took a telephone connection No. 32125 for his residence at Talla Joshikhala. He regularly deposited all the bills and there were no dues against him. All the bills from February 1998 to April 1999 have been paid. From May 1999 to June 1999 a bill of Rs. 1,911/- was arbitrary and wrongly issued to him. He protested against the said bill. He has not used the telephone. The complainant requested for investigation by the telephone department and he deposited the amount under protest. His bill never came of such an excessive amount. Again for the period July and August 1999 he received a bill of Rs. 2,375/-. On 25.7.1999 he got his STD facility disconnected and after depositing Rs. 50/-, the detail of STD calls was given to him, which was only 116 units but there was no detail regarding local calls. Then he sent a notice to the opposite party, which was not satisfactorily replied. He again sent a notice. For September and October 1999 a bill of Rs. 899/- was sent but only local calls were made. Only 69 local calls were made during this period. The complainant kept the details of his local calls from 1st October 1999 to 31st October 1999. After repeated requests, the bill was not corrected. On 25.11.1999 his telephone was disconnected by the telephone department. Then he paid the bill and his connection was restored after payment of Rs. 105/- as reconnection fees. 3. The telephone department filed written statement and alleged that the bill for the period from 1.5.1999 to 30.6.1999 has been rightly issued. On making large number of calls and long calls the bill should always be of high amount. The bill for the period July & August 1999 was also right because the meter was inspected and no error was found in the meter. The bill for September and October 1999 was also rightly issued. On 25.11.1999 his connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill. After paying the reconnection charges of Rs. 105/-, the connection was restored on 10.1.2000. 4. The bill for September and October 1999 was also rightly issued. On 25.11.1999 his connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill. After paying the reconnection charges of Rs. 105/-, the connection was restored on 10.1.2000. 4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the Learned Forum allowed the complaint as above against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. Notice was sent to the opposite party through registered post. It was returned but the envelope was open. It shows that it has been seen and returned. The notice was presumed to have been served. Therefore the appeal was heard exparte. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. Paper No. 16 error report has been filed. The details of calls are there. There are many discrepancies in this report. The complainant has paid all the bills up to April 1999. From 1st May 1999 the charge for a local call up to the time of 3 minutes was general and after that it was double. The complainant got his STD facility disconnected on 25th January 1999 but he did not take control of his local calls. Therefore the bill was coming of high amount. Due to non-payment the telephone was disconnected on 6th November 1999. After the filing of the complaint in the District Forum on 25th January 2000, the telephone department recorded the local calls in the computer. The calls have been recorded from 18th January 2000 to 16th February 2000, which shows that there is error in the recording of the computer. On 18th January 2000, 10 calls have been shown. It shows that there was fault in the computer of the telephone department. The computer sheet clearly shows that there was defect in the metering equipment of the appellant. Therefore it is clear that the bills were wrongly issued to the complainant of such an amount. This is definitely a deficiency in service. The Learned Forum has allowed a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant has not shown what loss he has suffered due to this. His telephone was disconnected on 25th November 1999. It was restored on 10th January 2000. In our view a compensation of Rs. l,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. The order under appeal is to be modified accordingly. 2,000/-. The complainant has not shown what loss he has suffered due to this. His telephone was disconnected on 25th November 1999. It was restored on 10th January 2000. In our view a compensation of Rs. l,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. The order under appeal is to be modified accordingly. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The amount of compensation is hereby reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed partly. *******