Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Factual backgrounds are that petitioner was subscriber of basic telephone installed at his house village Kotekar. Though bi-monthly rent @ Rs.275/- was being paid by subscriber till 31st March, 2000, it was enhanced to Rs.360/- from 1.4.2000 to 31.5.2000. There was also enhancement in rate of calls. Petitioner aggrieved with tariff made applicable to him, approached department but there was no response. Consequently, alleging deficiency in -2- service on part of respondent, a consumer complaint was filed seeking relief that tariff rates applicable to rural areas be realized from him even from 1.4.2000 onwards. District Forum on consideration of pleadings of parties returned a finding that respondent had raised charges against petitioner on basis of tariff applicable to urban area, his village having fallen under urban area as per report of Census Commissioner in 1991 and also 2001. Finding no merit, complaint was dismissed and in appeal too, finding of District Forum was affirmed. It seems that petitioner also knocked door of Telephone Adalat when he did not get desired relief. Observations made by Hon’ble High Court in this context are of significant “that once area was declared as urban area by Census Authority, rent in respect of telephone has to be paid as per rental fixed in respect of urban area”. Learned counsel for petitioner drew my attention to a decision of National Commission in revision petition No.701/2001. Since discrimination was alleged in that case, telephone department (respondent herein) apprised National Commission that department was contemplating to recover dues from subscribers. Having regard to concurrent finding of lower Fora and petitioner, having already -3- knocked door of Telephone Adalat, finding no merit, revision petition is dismissed.