JUDGMENT DESHMUKH S.G., Judicial Member: These appeals have been filed by the General Manager, Telecom Department against the judgment and order dated 28-11-2000 in Complaint case No. 152/00; common judgment and order dated 29-11-2000 in Complaint cases No. 176/00, 177/00, 179/00, 180/00. 182/00; judgment and order dated 30-11-2000 in Complaint case No. 181/2000, common judgment and order dated 29-102000 in Complaint cases No. 1/01,9/01/47/01 and judgment and order dated 17-6-2002 in Complaint case No. 56/02 respectively passed by. District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar. 2. Appellant in all these cases is common and issues involved in all these cases are common. Therefore we propose to decide all these appeals by this common judgment and order. 3. Respondents /Complainant's filed complaints challenging telephone bills on the ground that, the bills issued were contrary to the advertisement dated 15-1-2000 published in the local newspaper. It is contended that, as per said advertisement assurance and commitments were given by the appellant that, new telephone connection will be provided on payment of Rs. 1500/-. It is contended that, it view of the said advertisement appellants were not entitled to charge one year advance rental and thus telephone bills issued in that respects are illegal and liable l to be quashed and set aside. 4. The present appellants appeared before the Forum and contested all the complaints by fIling their say. It is contended that, as per said advertisement only registration charges of Rs. 3000/- were reduced to Rs.1500/- and same was to be effected from 17th January, 2000. Such benefit was not available to the consumer of the new telephone connection after expiry of said period i.e. 15 days from 17th January, 2000. It is contended that, one year advance rental is payable by the subscriber as per guidelines of Government of India and Department of Telecommunication vide P & T Manual No. 14 para 215 page 166. Such charges are not illegal as contended by the complainants. It is also contended that, no question arises to pay interest on the rental charges. 5. Learned Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaints holding that, appellants are not entitled to charge advance of one year rental, and therefore same paid by the complainants towards advance of one year rental should be refunded with interest 10% p.a. with effect from the date of deposit. 5. Learned Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaints holding that, appellants are not entitled to charge advance of one year rental, and therefore same paid by the complainants towards advance of one year rental should be refunded with interest 10% p.a. with effect from the date of deposit. The Forum below also directed appellant to pay Rs.500/- towards cost. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by District Forum, General Manager, Telecom. Ahmednager came in appeal. 7. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents in all above appeals. Learned Counsel Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande and Shri Jayant Chitnis appeared on behalf of Telecom. Learned Counsel Mrs. Tamboli S.S. appeared on behalf of respondents in Appeal No. 1828/2001, 1998/02. None appeared on behalf of respondents in remaining appeals. We heard learned Counsels for the appellant as well as respondents. Learned Counsel Mrs. Deshpande and Shri Chitnis submitted that, advertisement published by the present appellant can not be branded as unfair trade practice. Learned Counsels submitted that, advertisement in question neither expressly nor impliedly waived the yearly rental charges towards security deposit. Learned Counsels submitted that, order passed by the Forum in all the complaints is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Indian Telegraph Rule and also guidelines of Department of Telecommunication. According to learned Counsel the Forum below erred in holding that, there was unfair trade practice on the part of appellant in publishing such advertisement. Learned Counsel Shri. Chitnis submitted that, amount of one year advance rent is required to be paid by way of security on release of new telephone connection. Such advance is refundable to the subscriber when the telephone is finally closed. According to him, subscriber is not entitled to the interest on the amount in question. Learned Counsel relied on (General Manager Telecom Vist. Chandigarh Vs. Lt. Col. S.S. Setht), reported in 1997(2) C.P.R. 276 (NC). On the other hand, learned Counsel Mrs. Tamboli Who represents respondent in Appeal No. 1828/01, 998/02 submitted that, advertisement mentions that, special gift for registration of new telephone connection is only Rs.1500/ -. Forms for new connections are available free of cost. According to learned Counsel a common man is misled and attracted by advertisement and its terms mentioned in the advertisement. Tamboli Who represents respondent in Appeal No. 1828/01, 998/02 submitted that, advertisement mentions that, special gift for registration of new telephone connection is only Rs.1500/ -. Forms for new connections are available free of cost. According to learned Counsel a common man is misled and attracted by advertisement and its terms mentioned in the advertisement. She submitted that, common man would not enquire about the rental deposit when such advertisement does not refer it. Learned Counsel submitted that, offering such scheme" with confusion in the advertisement is unfair trade practice. She submitted that, the forum below has rightly allowed the complaints and rightly directed the appellant to refund rental deposit with interest. 8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the Counsels and citation relied by learned Counsel of the appellant. 9. There is no dispute that, present appellant had published advertisement in daily news papers Loksatta dated 15th January 2000 attracting, customers to register their (demands for new telephone connection. Advertisement in question mentions in bold letters special gift for citizen of Ahmednagar city Savedi, Ahmednagar M.L.D.C. & Kedgaon. It mentions that, registration for new telephone connection is only Rs.15000/- forms for new connections are available free of cost. Looking to advertisement it appears that, picture of telephone with bold letter "~TTCJ3-Ti" atttached with liable of Rs. 1500/- have been displayed below the words 'special gift' printed in bold letters. It also appears that, the advertisement in question does not mention that, the advance of one year rental deposit has not been waived. The advertisement in question misled common man that, new phone connection is available only on payment of Rs. 1500/ - towards registration fees and no further payment towards the yearly rental is required to be paid. Looking to the advertisement certainly there is likelihood of common man being misled and attracted by picture displayed in the terms mentioned in advertisement. The common man would not enquire about the rental deposit when the advertisement in question does not mention anything about rental deposit. It is also apparent from the written statement filed by the present appellant that, they never disclosed the customers while depositing Rs.1500/- towards the registration fees for releasing of new phone connection that customers are required to pay one year, rental towards security deposit after releasing of phone connection. It is also apparent from the written statement filed by the present appellant that, they never disclosed the customers while depositing Rs.1500/- towards the registration fees for releasing of new phone connection that customers are required to pay one year, rental towards security deposit after releasing of phone connection. There is absolutely no evidence to show that, when complainants had approached appellant for release of new telephone connection for depositing of Rs.1500/- towards registration fees that, they were told by" the appellant that, one year rental charges will be recovered from them by issuing first bill. Certainly, the customers were attracted by advertisement that, new phone connection is available only on depositing of Rs. 1500/-. It was necessary for the appellant to explain while receiving registration fees of Rs. 1500/- that they are to pay one year rental charges. Written statement filed by appellant is silent on this count. It is tried to content that, Department of Telecommunication is following guidelines issued by Government of India and Department of Telecommunication for charging advance rental deposit. Guidelines are issued by Government of india to the Telecom Department certainly and common man cannot be said to have knowledge of guidelines in question which are issued by Government of India. The advertisements published by the appellant nowhere mentions about the rental charges or any such guideline issued by Govt. of India & Dept. of Telecommunication. 10. The ratio in Lt. Col.S.S. Sethi's case is not helpful to the appellant in the instant case. In the said case amount of one year advance rent was paid by way of security deposit. At the time of refund of the same customer was asking to pay reasonable interest on the advance rental. There was no such advertisement making to believe the customer that, no such security deposit is required. In the instant cases, amount of deposit was recovered by the appellant from the complainants making them to believe by publishing advertisement that, no such advance of one year is required. 11. In (L.I.C Vs. Sumit Kumar& Ors.), reported in 2007(1) C.P.R. 456 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that, "offering a scheme with confusion in advertisement is unfair trade practice". We have mentioned that, there was no reference about deposit of one year as security deposit in the advertisement. We have also mentioned that, at the time of accepting registration fee of Rs. Sumit Kumar& Ors.), reported in 2007(1) C.P.R. 456 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that, "offering a scheme with confusion in advertisement is unfair trade practice". We have mentioned that, there was no reference about deposit of one year as security deposit in the advertisement. We have also mentioned that, at the time of accepting registration fee of Rs. 1500/ - appellant did not explain the customers that they are required to deposit one year rental towards security deposit. The Forum below has rightly considered all these aspects and held that, advertisement in question misled the common public and induced to them to deposit Rs. 1500/ - towards registration fees for releasing of telephone connection. Offering a scheme with confusion in advertisement is unfair trade practice in view of the ratio in Sumit Kumar & Ors's case (supra). We do not find any illegality committed by the Forum to interfere the order while exercising appellant jurisdiction. We pass the following order. ORDER 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Appeal is dismissed.