B NARAYAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER BANGALORE TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the subscriber in regard to telephone bearing No. 576117 (Bangalore ). The telephone was installed on 25-6-1973 and STD facility was barred on 23-7-1982. A bill dated 11-10-89 (Ann. L) relating to the period 25-7-89 to 25-9-1989, was served on the petitioner for Rs. 16,648/ -. Petitioner gave a complaint that the bill was excessive. Pending investigation into the said complaint, a provisional bill was issued for Rs. 2,204/- taking into account his earlier bills, keeping the balance of Rs. 14,444/- in abeyance. The Department thereafter sent a letter dated 17-1-1990 informing the petitioner that their investigation showed that there was no malfunctioning of the meter or fault in the system leading to erroneous metering; and that even though telephone was STD barred, repeated attempts made from the petitioner's telephone to get STD had succeeded on quite a few occasions and therefore, the bill was in order. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed W. P. No. 15332/1990. That petition was disposed of by this Court on 27-5-1991 directing the department to refer the dispute under Section 7 (B) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. Accordingly the dispute was referred to the fourth respondent who had made a reasoned award dated 28-11-1991 (Ann. X) holding that the bill dated 11-10-1989 for Rs. 16,648/- is in order and the subscriber is liable to make payment. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Annexures L and X.

(2.) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that the award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties and shall not be questioned in any Court. The statutory remedy under the Arbitration Act to challenge an award is not available for challenging an award under the Telegraph Act. Therefore the only remedy is to challenge the award in a writ petition. It is no doubt true that this court in its writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of appeal in regard to an award of arbitrator. The scope of judicial review is very limited in regard to findings of fact arrived at by the arbitrator. This Court will interfere with an award of the arbitrator only where (i) the procedure adopted by the arbitrator or the award, is arbitrary or unreasonable or opposed to principles of natural justice; and (ii) bias or mala fides is made out on the part of the arbitrator. This Court will not interfere merely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. But if the finding is based on no evidence at all, this Court may interfere with the award.

(3.) IN this case, the award is based on the premise that even though a subscriber's telephone is STD barred,it is possible to make STD calls, through such STD barred telephone; and a finding that in fact STD calls have been so made from petitioner's telephone during the relevant period and therefore the bill is in order.