ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.05.2007 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Hyderabad (in short, he District Forum. 2. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. He stated that he had obtained a cell phone connection from the petitioner. In May 2006, he received a bill for Rs.21,736/- and noticed that the bill included charge for an ISD (international subscriber dialling) call @ Rs.500/- per minute. He alleged that the charge of Rs.500/- per minute was not included/shown in the tariff plan which was supplied to him by the petitioner when he took the cell phone connection. In view of this, he alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, after notice, denied the allegations and averred that the specific call in question was made to a number which was a satellite telephone connection. The charges for call to satellite telephones were different from those for the regular ISD call charges and, accordingly, the petitioner had charged @ of Rs.500/- per minute. The petitioner also contended that the customers had been informed about this and the information was also published in some newspapers. Hence, the petitioner claimed that there was no deficiency in service, nor any unfair trade practice on its behalf. 3. After detailed consideration of the pleadings, documents and evidence brought on record by the parties, the District Forum held the petitioner guilty of unfair trade practice and directed it to revise the bill in accordance with the appropriate regular tariff for ISD calls. Apart from this, the petitioner was directed to refrain from such unfair trade practice in future and also to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. It is this order that the petitioner challenged before the State Commission, with the result already noted. 4. Though the respondent/complainant was duly served with notice, there was no representation from his side. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard in the absence of the respondent. 5. In the tariff card furnished by the petitioner there was no mention at all of the rate of Rs.500/- per minute for calls to satellite telephones, nor was there any clarification of the asterisk mark (*) against a couple of the rates. Therefore, from the material brought on record and relied upon by the Fora below, I find no reason to disagree with the appraisal of evidence (in particular, the tariff card mentioned above) by the District Forum. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. The revision petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to costs.