ORDER (Per : Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President) : Provider of telephone service preferred appeal against the order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in Consumer Complaint No. 119/2004, directing the appellants to issue fresh bills of Rs. 1,200/- each for two disputed billing cycles of two months w.e.f. 16.02.2004 to 15.04.2004 and 16.04.2004 to 15.06.2004, to be paid by the complainant within 15 days. Complainant was also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses, which was directed to be adjusted against the said two bills of Rs. 1,200/- each. 2. Complainant was provided telephone connection with STD facility at his shop. For the billing cycle of two months w.e.f. 16.02.2004 to 15.04.2004, bill for Rs. 17,092/- in respect of 13172 calls was received, although in the past, complainant claimed to have not received such an exorbitant telephone bill. Complainant made complaint to the Divisional Engineer (Telephone), Nainital, who gave out that the bill is correct and the payment has to be made by the complainant. Complainant alleged that the telephone is being used only for business purposes at the shop and mostly the consumers themselves make a call to the complainant and the telephone is not being regularly used from the other side. Again, for the billing cycle of two months w.e.f. 16.04.2004 to 15.06.2004, bill of Rs. 11,305/- for 8707 calls was received and on complaint being made, the grievance was not redressed by the service provider. In the past five billing cycles of two months, the bills were received by the complainant as under :- Period of Bill Amount 16.02.2003 to 15.04.2003 Rs. 750/- 16.04.2003 to 15.06.2003 Rs. 1,033/- 16.06.2003 to 15.08.2003 Rs. 1,395/- 16.08.2003 to 15.10.2003 Rs. 1,105/- 16.12.2003 to 15.02.2004 Rs. 1,758/- 3. Referring to the above bills averaging for Rs. 1,200/- only for billing cycle of two months in the past, complainant alleged that the above excessive bills on two occasions were the result of technical fault and negligence of the service provider and that the service provider made deficiency in service making them liable to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment besides issuing fresh bills on average basis for Rs. 1,200/- each for the two billing cycles of the two months. 4. 1,200/- each for the two billing cycles of the two months. 4. The consumer complaint was contested on the ground that the telephone in question is installed at the business premises of the complainant and the same was obviously used extensively by the complainant and his family members; that the bills in question were issued on the basis of the meter reading; that there was no defect in the meter and also there was no negligence in issuing the bills in question; that the calls were recorded and bills were prepared on computer system eliminating any error and that there was no deficiency in service and as such the complainant was not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him. 5. Record reveal that the service provider attended to the complaint and have the meter and related appliance checked by the technical staff and filed relevant report (Paper No. 15) and computer print outs of the telephone in question (Paper Nos. 16 to 19). The parties also filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions. Complainant also filed his affidavit (Paper Nos. 32 to 34) on 18.09.2006 claiming that he does not know the persons whose telephone numbers (13 in number) find mention in the computer print outs and no calls were made by him from his telephone to these called numbers. On the basis of the material on record which was before the District Forum, it came to the conclusion that sending of two excessive bills of Rs. 17,092/- and Rs. 11,305/- for two consecutive billing cycles of two months each indicate that the excessive bills were the consequence either of some technical fault in the meter of tampering with it; that since cases have come before the District Forum in which it had been found that ISD facility and calls were made on numbers in foreign countries and these were accepted by the service provider as technical mistakes, which sometime occur, although a common consumer cannot have any knowledge about it and, therefore, it appear that the present case of excessive bills of two consecutive occasions appear to be the result of some technical fault, although it may not be a consequence of tampering with the meter or telephone connection. The District Forum also observed that it has not been shown that some big ceremony or any celebration necessitating extensive use of the telephone has been organized during the period of the bills in question and since the complainant is having his telephone connection since long, it is difficult to assume that the complainant or his family members were having a fancy to use telephone unnecessarily and on repeated occasions and as such opined that these two excessive bills were the result of some technical fault. The District Forum, thus, directed the service provider to issue fresh bills of Rs. 1,200/- each on the basis of average bills in the past issued to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, this appeal was preferred by the service provider (BSNL and others). 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submission in the light of the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the case. There is no doubt that the complainant made allegations that the highly excessive bills in question were either the result of defect in the meter and recording of the calls or tampering with the meter or misuse of the telephone by unauthorized person in view of the fact that the telephone had not been used to extensively by him as is evident from the telephone bills received in the past and as referred above. Perusal of the order of the District Forum also make it obvious that the finding is also based on the experience gained from some other cases brought before it in the meter or tampering with the same. Infact, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, a positive and definite finding was required to be recorded. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that on the basis of the computer print outs (Paper Nos. 16 to 19), we were able to observe, for example that during the two billing cycles of two months each, 171 out of 273 calls were made from the telephone of the complainant to a particular mobile No. 09891666023 and such examples can be multiplied, which need not be repeated here. 16 to 19), we were able to observe, for example that during the two billing cycles of two months each, 171 out of 273 calls were made from the telephone of the complainant to a particular mobile No. 09891666023 and such examples can be multiplied, which need not be repeated here. Strangely enough, we also observed that from 07.03.2004 to 14.03.2004, all the calls were made to the said mobile number from the complainant’s telephone and such examples can also be multiplied, which need not be mentioned in extensive here. In short, on the basis of the observation, we could say that such pattern continued on number of days altogether without a single telephone call being made to any other telephone number and in the totality of the circumstances of the case, the possibility of misuse of the telephone of the complainant by unauthorized person or tampering with the meter cannot at all be ruled out. As stated above, complainant in his affidavit gave out numbers of 13 telephones claiming that he does not know the persons whose such telephone numbers find mention in the computer print outs and in a situation like this, we understand that the dispute involved require elaborate evidence of both sides. With a reference to above observation, we may refer to the plea raised by the appellants that the District Forum has not considered the provision of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. We see force in the submission in this regard and considering the allegation laid and above glaring facts observed, the disputed bills were required to be referred for arbitration within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for determination of the dispute by considering all the technical aspects of the matter and the elaborate evidence to be adduced in that regard by both the parties. In a dispute of excessive billing, the matter was referred by the State Commission, Chandigarh for arbitration within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in the case of District Manager, Telephones Vs. Administrative Officer, Punjab Mandi; III (2001) CPJ 69 and in coming to the conclusion in that regard, the State Commission followed the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad Vs. Administrative Officer, Punjab Mandi; III (2001) CPJ 69 and in coming to the conclusion in that regard, the State Commission followed the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad Vs. Veerender Kumar, reported in II (1997) CPJ 60 (NC) = 1997 (1) CPR 165. 7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the District Forum was not technical competent to quantify the amount of the disputed bills by making general observations as referred above and the matter should have been directed to be decided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by an arbitrator, who no doubt would be a technical person and would consider the case keeping in view the observation made above and looking into the computer print outs together with the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. In other words, the order of the District Forum cannot legally be maintained and is liable to be set aside. 8. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 20.05.2005 of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The appellants/service provider are directed to refer the matter to arbitration within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within a period of 20 days from the date of this order and the dispute shall be determined within a period of three months thereafter by the arbitrator. Cost of the appeal made easy.