The joint reconciliation report dated 16.10.2006 clearly show that only sample datas have been compared. Annexure-I appended thereto refers to the comparison made in respect of calls to Bangalore Rural Area; whereas Annexure-II refers to the calls made in Cell One which is the mobile network of the respondent. It is clearly stated that in respect of some calls for which NO CLI was not recorded both at BSNL and TTSL, the same was required to be dealt with as per the IUC/agreement. The authorities of the respondents, therefore, clearly held that the CDRs of the parties were matching with reference to date, time, calling number and called number with duration with 1 second variation and the majority of non-CLI calls pertain to Bangalore rural for the months of May, June, July and August, 2003. Even for July, August and September, 2003 many calls to Cell One were also found where calling number was not available in the BSNL data but found to be available in the CDR of the petitioner. It has not been denied or disputed that the ordinarily CDRs of both the parties should match. If calling line identification of the caller is available on the CDR of the petitioner on the basis whereof the petitioner might have raised bills in terms of IUC Regulations but not shown in the CDR of the respondent, the fault lay in the system of the respondent itself for which the petitioner cannot be penalised.
