Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5912 OF 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.20515 OF 2006)

SAJI GEEVARGHESE    ... APPELLANT VERSUS ACCOUNTS OFFICER (Telephone  Revenue) & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Delay  condoned.  Leave  granted.  Heard  the  learned counsel. This appeal relates to a telephone subscriber's grievance in regard to excess billing.  

2. Appellant  received  a  bill  dated  11.7.1995  for Rs.91,621/-  in  regard  to  his  telephone  (No.239473  of Pattazhi,  Kollam).  On  28.7.1995  the  appellant  lodged  a

complaint  with  the  first  respondent  alleging  excess metering  and/or  misuse  in  regard  to  his  telephone.  He stated  that  no  action  had  been  taken  in  spite  of  his meeting the concerned Junior Engineer and complaining about the bill. He requested that the demand for the payment of the  Bill  may  be  kept  ‘pending’  till  enquiry  into  his complaint.  (According  to  the  appellant,  he  had  earlier received  another  excess  bill  (dated  11.1.1995)  for Rs.79170/- and he had orally complained about it, but paid the  amount  in  view  of  an  assurance  of  the  telecom department  to  enquire  into  his  complaint).  The  first respondent sent a reply dated 8.8.1995 informing him that the matter was being enquired into and called upon him to settle the bill, pending such enquiry. When matters stood thus, the appellant was served another bill dated 11.9.1995 for Rs.581,717/- for 403630 calls. As the amounts of bills dated 11.7.1995 and 11.9.1995 were not paid, the telephone was disconnected on 27.9.1995. The respondents also issued a notice dated 30.11.1995 demanding payment of the arrears of  Rs.677,338/-  by  13.12.1995.  They  also  threatened  to permanently close the telephone and recover the amount as revenue  arrears,  if  the  amount  was  not  paid.  Though appellant  reiterated  his  request  for  action  on  his complaint, the department, by letter dated 15.3.1996 merely

2

reiterated  the  demand  for  payment.  Appellant  therefore approached the High Court for relief. The High Court by order  dated  26.4.1996  disposed  of  the  petition  with  a direction to the Telecom department to refer the dispute to statutory  arbitration  under  section  7B  of  the  Telegraph Act, 1885.  

3. In pursuance of the above, the department appointed the  fourth  respondent  as  Arbitrator  on  1.8.1996  and referred  the  excess  billing  dispute  in  regard  to  the following three bills for arbitration:

Date of Bill     Number of Calls Bill Amount (i) 11.01.1995 54300 Rs.  79,170/- (ii) 11.07.1995 62270 Rs.  91,621/- (iii) 11.09.1995 403630            Rs.5,81,717/-

The  appellant  contended  before  the  Arbitrator  that  the bills for 1994 would show that the number of calls made (bimonthly) were only 1580, 2860, 3310 and 13220, as per bills dated 11.5.1994, 11.7.1994, 11.9.1994 and 11.11.1994. Even  in  1995,  that  is,  for  the  periods  25.12.1994  to 24.2.1995 and 25.2.1995 to 24.4.1995, the number of calls

3

were only 2800 and 4100 as per bills dated 11.3.1995 and 11.5.1995. He pointed out that the Bill dated 11.1.1995 for the period 25.10.1994 to 25.12.1994, bill dated 11.7.1995 for  the  period  25.4.1995  to  25.6.1995  and  bill  dated 11.9.1995  covering  the  period  upto  25.8.1995  showed  an unbelievably  large  number  of  calls  as  having  been  made (54300, 62270 and 403630 respectively). He attributed the unexplained spurts to some fault in the system (metering circuit) or some collusive mischief by the telephone staff in collusion with other users.   

4. The  telecom  department  contended  before   the Arbitrator  that  there  were  no  faults  or  defects  in  the system and as the telephone was connected to an electronic exchange there was no chance of misuse or excess metering. They alleged that the appellant was a heavy caller and  was probably using the telephone for international calls and unauthorized FAX facility. They submitted that there was no error in the bills.  

5. The  Arbitrator  made  an  award  dated  9.1.1997.  After referring to the facts he concluded : “On deep analysis of the case, I found that there was no proper monitoring of the  calls  originated  from  the  petitioner's  telephone  by

4

Telegraph  Authority  and  I  found  that  the  appellant  was eligible for rebate and by extending the benefit of doubt, I allow 40000 calls in favour of the petitioner, in the disputed bill dated 11.9.1995 issued for Rs.5,81,717/-… I do not find any justification to allow any rebate in favour of the petitioner for the disputed bills dated 11.1.1995 and 11.7.1995.” Accordingly, he upheld the three bills for Rs.79,170/-,  Rs.91,621/-  and  Rs.5,81,717/-,  and  granted limited relief to an extent of 40,000 calls in regard to the bill dated 11.9.1995.  

6. The  appellant  challenged  the  said  award  before  the Kerala High Court.  A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High  Court  by  order  dated  24.7.2002  dismissed  the appellant's writ petition, being of the view that it was not  possible  to  disturb  the  findings   recorded  by  the Arbitrator who was a quasi judicial authority, in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The appellant filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed on 16.6.2005.   The  Division  Bench  upheld  the  award  on  the following reasoning:  

“The  petitioner’s  telephone  was  having  STD/ISD facility.  There  is  no  evidence  of  misuse  of  the instrument either by the department staff or by any outsider. Enquiry was also conducted on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. If the petitioner had

5

got  any  doubt  regarding  the  system,  he  could  have availed of the dynamic locking facility which he has not availed……”

The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes the awards of Arbitrators final and conclusive between parties. The only remedy available to a subscriber aggrieved by an award is to seek judicial review by way of a writ petition. The High Court will not however sit in appeal over the Award, but will only examine its correctness and legality, within the limited confines of judicial review. (Vide  M.L. Jaggi vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd – 1996 (3) SCC 119).  We have  examined  the  award  keeping  in  view  the  aforesaid principles. The facts disclosed by the telecom department in the affidavits filed by the department before the High Court, show that the award of the Arbitrator suffers from non-application of mind which had led to several apparent, in fact, glaring errors of fact and law. We may refer to some of them briefly.  

8. The  award  of  the  Arbitrator  upholds  the  bill  dated 11.7.1995 for Rs.91,671/- relating to the period 26.4.1995 to 25.6.1995 and directs the subscriber to pay the said

6

amount. The affidavits the department clearly shows that the  bill  dated  11.9.1995  for  403630  calls,  is  a consolidated bill for the period 25.12.1994 to 25.8.1995 and it includes the amount due for the calls made during the period covered by the bill dated 11.7.1995 (as also the period  covered  by  two  other  bills  dated  11.3.1995  and 11.5.1995). In other words, having regard to the bill dated 11.9.1995  for  403630  calls,  the  earlier  bills  dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995 and 11.7.1995 for 2800, 4100 and 62770 calls  got  cancelled.  As  the  period  covered  by  the  bill dated 11.7.1995 was covered by the subsequent bill dated 11.9.1995,  the  Arbitrator  ought  to  have  held  that  bill dated 11.7.1995 was not payable. But he has mechanically and  without  application  of  mind,  upheld  the  bill  dated 11.7.1995 as also the bill dated 11.9.1995 without noticing that the bill dated 11.7.1995 cannot survive in view of the bill dated 11.9.1995.  

9. The Arbitrator upheld the bills dated 11.7.1995 and 11.9.1995  by  accepting  the  explanation  of  the  telecom department that completion of several revolutions of the meter had been missed and that had lead to underbilling in the bills dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995 and 11.7.1995 and that was  rectified  in  the  consolidated  bill  dated  11.9.1995.

7

According to the department, the meter was a five digit meter  and  could  record  the  numbers  running  from  ‘0’  to ‘99999’.  After  reaching  ‘99999’,  the  meter  would  again start recording from ‘0’. By way of illustration, it was stated that for the period 25.4.1995 to 25.6.1995 covered by the bill dated 11.7.1995, the opening reading was 82886 and closing reading was 45655. The bill dated 11.7.1995 was prepared  for  62770  units  assuming  that  between  the  two reading, the meter had completed an revolution, that is it had reached 82886 to 99999 and then started from ‘0’ to 45655. But it is alleged that between the two readings it had  completed  one  more  complete  revolution,  that  is  the meter ran from 82886 to 99999, then it ran one full round from ‘0’ to ‘99999’, and then again started from ‘0’ to 45655.  According  to  the  department  the  number  of  called meter was therefore 162,769 units and not 62,770 units. For this purpose, the department has relied on the fortnightly meter reading record.   

10. But  the  missing  of  one  revolution  cannot  offer  any explanation as to why the Bill dated 11.3.1995 was only for 2800 units and the Bill dated 11.5.1995 was only for 4100 units.  The  Bill  dated  11.3.1995  covered  the  period 25.12.1994  to  25.2.1995.  For  this  period,  the  opening

8

reading was 75985 and the closing reading was 65508. There is  no  way  the  completion  of  revolution  could  have  been ignored and the number of units was (99999-75985)+(65508)= 89523. There is no way the number of units could be shown as only 2800 for the period 25.12.1994 to 25.2.1995. But the bill was only for 2800 units. This remains unexplained. The Bill dated 11.5.1995 covered the period 25.2.1995 to 25.4.1995. The opening reading was 65508 and the closing reading  was  82886.  It  is  stated  by  the  department  that during the billing period one revolution was completed and therefore, the number of units was (99999-65508) + (82886) =  117378.  Even  if  the  completion  of  the  revolution  was missed, the Bill for the period should have been for 17378 units (that is 82886-65509). But the bill for 11.5.1995 is only for 4100 units. This is also not explained. Therefore, it is clear that missing or overlooking the completions of revolutions  could  not  the  real  reason  for  the  alleged underbilling for the periods covered by the bills 11.3.1995 and 11.5.1995. This becomes relevant because the Arbitrator did not find any irregularity in the bills for the periods covered by the Bills dated 11.3.1995 and 11.5.1995 which were  for  2800  units  and  4100  units.  But  the  department ultimately  charged  the  subscriber  for  89523  calls  (as against 2800 calls shown in the Bill dated 11.3.1995) and

9

for 117378 calls (as against 4100 calls shown in the Bill dated 11.5.1995) for the said periods under the Bill dated 11.9.1995.  

11. The Arbitrator having recorded a finding that there was a lack of monitoring by the department in respect of calls originating from Appellant’s telephone, has failed to consider its serious consequences on the subscriber, with reference to the facts of the case. He has routinely given a 10% rebate by directing a rebate of 40000 calls in the bill dated 11.9.1995 on account of “benefit of doubt”. This is arbitrary. He ought to have considered the question as to what should be the relief when the errors in billing were  due  to  lack  of  monitoring  and  inspection  of  the department  and  the  department  claimed  there  was  a  huge underbilling for a back-period and sought to rectify such underbilling.   

12. The Department’s guidelines give an indication as to the  consequences  of  lack  of  monitoring  and  inspection whenever  there  were  unexplained  spurts.   They  also  lays down the procedure when spurts in calls are noticed. On 10.4.2008, this Court directed the department to produce the departmental guidelines for disposing of excess billing

10

complaints. Initially the respondent produced the current guidelines  dated  19.10.2005  along  with  an  affidavit.  By subsequent order dated 3.9.2008, this Court directed the respondents to produce the guidelines in force during the disputed billing period (1994-95). In response to it, the department has produced the circular dated 9.4.1986 as the relevant  guidelines  applicable,  along  with  its  affidavit dated 23.9.2008. We extract the relevant provisions from the said circular:

“4.Avoiding excess billing complaints 4.1) In general, excess billing complaints arise from telephones having STD facility. They arise because of: (a) the subscriber, his family, friends and employees having used STD and not being conscious of the extent to which they have used it, or (b) a fault in the metering circuit, or some transient fault in the system; and  (c) possible deliberate mischief by other subscribers in league with our staff. xxxxxxxxx 4.3) We have to be vigilant about 4.1(b) and ensure that as far as possible, metering circuits are tested and kept in proper order. 4.4)  In  regard  to  4.1(c)  we  must  ensure  that  all possible points at which such mischief can take place are suitably guarded. D.Ps must be looked, access to unauthorised  persons  to  sensitive  areas  in  the Exchange  should  be  avoided  and  in  case  of  any suspicion  about  a  particular  member  of  the  staff, suitable action must be taken. 5.  Advance  action  in  case  of  a  possibility  of  an excess billing complaint. 5.1) Detailed instructions have been issued separately in regard to watching the meter readings of various

11

subscribers and action to be taken on them. 5.2 These broadly consist of  (a) Meter readings being taken every fortnight; (b)  Identifying  all  subscribers  whose  current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt; and (c)  In  case  of  such  sudden  spurts  being  noticed, placing the telephone line on observation and deputing responsible  staff  to  the  subscriber's  premises  to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts. 5.3)   In  order  to  establish  the  Department's credibility  and  to  satisfactorily  investigate complaints about excess billing it is necessary that these steps are taken conscientiously. It appears that in many stations, while meter readings are being taken regularly every fortnight, the difference is not being struck and all cases of spurts are not being brought out.

5.4) In all cases, the meter readings registers must provide  for  the  difference  being  noted.  Somebody should be held personally responsible to identify and report all cases of spurts to the officer-in-charge. Failure in this regard must be taken notice of. If an excess billing complaint reveals a spurt, which had not  been  reported,  suitable  educational  and disciplinary notice should be taken of the concerned staff.

5.5)  As far as possible all telephone lines showing a sudden spurt should be put on observation. For this purpose  immediate  steps  must  be  taken  to  provide suitable observation equipment in all exchanges having STD facilities, so that once a spurt is noted, the line is actually put on observation.

xxx xxx” 6. Investigation of an excess billing complaint

.. .. .. .. 6.5 In this connection, it has been decided that no field investigation is called for to determine whether there was any occasion for a special spurt after a complaint  has  been  received.  This  should  have  been made, if justified, immediately after the spurt was

12

noticed  in  the  fortnightly  readings.  It  has  been noticed  that  no  useful  purpose  is  served  by undertaking  such  investigations  after  an  excess billing complaint has been received.

Guidelines for decisions and conveying the same 7.1 In all cases in which the investigations reveal that  (a) there has been significant spurt in a particular period; (b) in case of a spurt, there had been some special occasion  which  might  have  given  rise  to  a  genuine spurt; and (c) the observations indicate genuine STD calls having been made from the subscriber's number no rebate may be granted and the complaint may be suitably informed with  due  courtesy  explaining  briefly  the investigations carried out and the results thereof.   

7.2 On the other hand, if it is found that there had been, in fact, a spurt for reasons unknown or there is a reasonable doubt as to the possible faults on the metering circuit or the subscribers’ equipment or a reasonable doubt exists about the possibility of some mischief,  the  competent  officer  may  grant  suitable rebate.”

12. What  becomes  apparent  from  the  guidelines,  is  the obligation  on  the  part  of  the  department  to  record  the meter reading fortnightly and if there is a sudden spurt, place  the  telephone  line  under  observation  and  depute responsible staff to check whether there was any special reason  giving rise to the spurts. The reason is apparent. Only  contemporaneous  investigation  and  checking  can disclose  the  real  reason  for  the  spurt.  Any  amount  of

13

subsequent monitoring may not be of any use to identify the real  cause  for  the  spurt  (unless  the  cause  is  faulty meter/system and that fault had continued).  

13. In this case the stand of the department is that meter is capable of recording a maximum of 99999 units, and after completing one revolution of 99999 units, the meter will again start from the reading ‘0’ (zero); that the meter had completed one revolution each during the periods 10.1.1995 to  25.1.1995,  10.3.1995  to  25.3.1995,  25.4.1995  to 10.5.1995 and 25.5.1995 to 10.6.1995; that the completion of such revolutions in January, March, April-May and May- June of 1995 was not noticed nor recorded by the department and consequently they had sent bills showing lesser number of  calls  than  the  actual  numbers.  The  department  claims that after receiving the complaint dated 28.7.1995 from the appellant, it inspected the installation and also verified the meter readings and discovered that the completion of four revolutions in January, March, April-May and May-June, 1995, had been missed while billing; and that therefore, it prepared a consolidated bill dated 11.9.1995 for the period 25.12.1994  to  25.8.1995  (covering  the  four  bimonthly periods of bills dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995, 11.7.1995 and 11.9.1995), setting right the omissions and errors. It is

14

thus  clear  that  during  the  billing  period  for  the  bill dated 11.9.1995 (25.6.1995 to 25.8.1995), the appellant did not make  403630 calls, but had made only 33960 calls. The actual position according to the department is as follows (extracted from the affidavit dated 10.8.1999 filed in the High Court) :

Bill date Period Units consumed as per bills served on the subscriber  

Units consumed after taking note of completion of

revolutions 11.3.1995 25.12.1994  to

25.2.1995 2800 89523

11.5.1995 25.2.1995  to 25.4.1995

4100 117378 11.7.1995 25.4.1995  to

25.6.1995 62700 162769

11.9.1995 25.6.1995  to 25.8.1995

- 33960

What emerges is this : When excess billing was noticed by the Subscriber in the Bill dated 11.1.1995 (for the period 25.10.1994  to  25.12.1994)  he  complained  to  the  Junior Engineer concerned, but paid the bill. He did not complain when received the bills dated 11.3.1995 and 11.5.1995, as they  were  showing  normal  number  of  calls.  He  again complained when there was excess billing in the bill dated 11.7.1995  (for  the  period  25.4.1995  to  25.6.1995).  Only thereafter  the  department  inspected  the  system  and verification of recording. On such verification, it claims

15

to have found not  excess billing, but  underbilling during the period covered by the period 25.12.1994 to 25.2.1995, 25.2.1995 to 25.4.1995 and 25.4.1995 to 25.6.1995 covered by the bills dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995 and 11.7.1995 and consequently  sent  a  revised  consolidated  bill  dated 11.9.1995, by rectifying the alleged underbilling.  

14. The  significant  adverse  consequence  is  that  the appellant was denied the  opportunity of complaining about excess billing in regard to the period January to June, 1995. As noticed above, the department alleges that in view of  omissions  noticed  in  the  earlier  bills,  it  sent  a revised consolidated bill dated 11.9.1995 for 403630 units for  the  period  25.12.1994  to  25.8.1995.  If  the  correct number  of  calls  had  been  recorded  and  reflected  in  the respective bills relating to Dec-Feb, Feb-April, and April- June 1995, the Appellant would not have been denied the valuable right of objecting to the excessive billing as and when  the  bills  were  presented.  If  the  spurts  had  been noticed  and  recorded in time,  as it ought  to have been done,  the  verification/inspection/  monitoring  mechanism could and would have been activated and the real reason for the spurts would have been identified. On account of the failure to record the meter reading properly in time, the

16

opportunity to monitor, inspect and identify which of the three reasons mentioned in clause 4.1 of the guidelines, resulted  in  the  spurt,  was  irretrievably  lost.  The subscriber  also  lost  the  valuable  right  to  complaining against excessive billing and setting in motion appropriate inspection,  verification  and  corrections  procedures.  By reason of the omissions and negligence by the officers of the department, the appellant has been burdened with a bill for 403630 units for 8 months (25.12.1994 to 25.8.1995) as against the normal average bimonthly billing of about 10000 to 15000 calls or 40000 to 60000 calls for the said eight months. According to the department, it merely corrected the errors resulting from the omissions/negligence on the part of its officers. But such correction has resulted not in  restoration  of  normal  billing  from  a  position  of underbilling, but in an extra-ordinarily excessive billing against  the  subscriber  denying  him  the  legitimate entitlement  of  objecting  to  it  in  time  and  getting  it corrected.  

15. The  difference  in  consequences  where  retrospective correction  results  in  regularisation  or  normalisation  of the  bills,  and  where  retrospective  correction  leads  to excessive  billing  is  significant.  We  will  try  to

17

demonstrate  the  significance  by  an  illustration.  Let  us assume that the average bimonthly billing of a subscriber was around 5000 units during 1993 and 1994; that due to departmental omission or negligence, there was underbilling during 1995 leading to bimonthly billings for about 1000 units only; and that subsequently the errors/omissions were noticed and corrected and the bimonthly bills were sent for about 5000 units. In such an event, the consumer obviously cannot have a grievance, as the bills were being brought to regular  billing  quantities.  But  let  us  take  another situation. Let us assume the average bimonthly  billing was around 5000 units in 1993 and 1994; that even during 1995 also, bimonthly bills were sent for around 5000 units; and that  in  1996  the  department  alleges  that  there  was underbilling in 1995 and sent bimonthly bills each for say 100000 units. Then how does the subscriber defend himself against  the  claim?  How  can  he  set  the  verification  and correction mechanism in motion to establish that the calls to an extent of 100,000 units were not made? The answer is that  he  cannot.  Obviously  the  department  cannot  put  a subscriber in a position where he cannot verify or seek verification of revised claims relating to back-periods.  

16. If the completion of revolutions had been noticed and

18

if the bills for such high number of calls had been sent in time,  the  appellant  would  have  had  an  opportunity  to complain against the excess billing and consequently the department would have been in a position to monitor the system  and  ensure  that  the  defects  were  rectified.  In addition it would have also been possible to verify as to whether there was any misuse or deliberate mischief by the staff and/or other subscribers, or whether the excess use was actually by the subscriber himself. This very valuable right  was  denied  to  the  subscriber  on  account  of  the failure  of  the  department  to  notice  the  several  alleged completion  of  revolutions  resulting  in  steep  spurts.  In fact the guidelines clearly state that if there was a spurt even in one fortnight reading, action should be taken.  In this  case  spurts  continued  for  about  16  fortnights,  but remained unnoticed by the department. Consequences of such defaults and negligence by the department cannot be visited upon the subscriber by way of increased claims for back- periods.   

17. We hasten to add that the correction of errors in the bills  or  additions  of  the  omitted  quantities  is  not  by itself  illegal.  If  the  corrections  made  on  noticing  the omissions,  when  incorporated,  results  in  raising  a  less

19

than average bill to around the normal billing, it may not be open to question. Where the department has clear and acceptable evidence in support of omissions or underbilling which is capable of verification, it may be possible to revise  the  back-period  bills.  But  where  the  belated correction  of  the  alleged  omissions  leads  to  a  huge increase  in  the  normal  billing  and  where  there  is  no acceptable evidence supporting such increased claim, then the  subscriber  having  been  denied  the  opportunity  to protest  or  object  to  the  increased  claim  and  secure monitoring of the installation or inspection of the system, cannot be burdened with a revised increased billing.  

18. Coming back to this case, we are conscious that the High Court was not sitting in appeal over the award of the Arbitrator, and the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have upheld the award. But the Arbitrator clearly recorded a finding that there was no monitoring by the  department  in  spite  of  spurts  and  that  had  led  to defective billing. But he gave only a marginal rebate of 10% without any logical reason for such a small rebate. He also  directed  double  payments.  He  also  ignored  the admissions  by  the  department.  He  upheld  a  retrospective revision resulting in a huge claim. These visible errors on

20

the  face  of the award,  which ought to  have shocked the judicial  conscience  have  been  totally  ignored  by  the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench of the High Court, by a wrong application of the principle that courts will not sit in judgment over Arbitral Awards. The award of the Arbitrator is therefore liable to be set aside.  

19. We are of the view that no useful purpose would be served at this distance of time by remitting the matter to the Arbitrator. To put an end to the litigation and to do complete  justice,  we  propose  to  modify  the  Bills.  As noticed  above  the  faulty  billing  was  on  account  of  the negligence  of  the  department;  and  as  a  result  of  such negligence, the valuable right of the subscriber to object to the increase and secure monitoring/inspection has been taken  away.  Therefore,  justice  can  be  done  in  such  a situation only by restricting the billing to the average of the bills for one year prior to the disputed period. As we find that there is no proper billing for two months, during the previous year, we propose to take the average of last five bimonthly bills before the disputed period. This shows the average bimonthly use to 15054, rounded off to 15,000.

20. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the orders

21

of  the  High  Court  and  the  Award  of  the  Arbitrator  and direct as follows :      (i) As the bill dated 11.1.1995 for Rs.79,170/- (for the period 25.10.1994 to 25.12.1994) has been paid without any protest in writing, and the written complaint was only six months later, the appellant cannot avoid liability, even if there might have been some steep spurts during that period.  

(ii) In  regard  to  the  period  25.12.1994  to  25.8.1995 covered  by  the  consolidated  bill  dated  11.9.1995,  the chargeable units are restricted to 60000 (sixty thousand) in place of the bills dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995, 11.7.1995 and 11.9.995.    (iii)The  department  is  directed  to  send  a  revised  bill relating to the said period (25.12.1994 to 25.8.1995) by cancelling the bills dated 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995, 11.7.1995 and 11.9.1995 already sent.  

(iv) Respondents  shall  pay  Rs.5000/-  as  costs  to  the appellant.  

………………...............J.         (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

22

       …………………….............J.            (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008.

23