MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. OM PRAKASH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the preliminary issue raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit, in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Facts in brief are: that the plaintiff [Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short 'MTNL')] instituted the suit pleading therein that on 21st September, 1989, telephone No.236415 was provided to Om Prakash Chawla, (first defendant), at shop No.872-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi with STD facility. The plaintiff used to issue bills for actual use of telephone recorded in the associated meter. It is pleaded that after adjustments bills for Rs.4,67,887/- remained payable. The defendants failed to make payment of the aforesaid bills, despite reminders. Consequently, the telephone was disconnected on 19th October, 1992, on account of non-payment of bills. During the course of investigation it was found that the telephone was installed in the name of first defendant and was being used by second defendant, who is the owner of the shop No.872-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ Rs.18% per annum on the amount till the date of realisation. First defendant filed written statement raising a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the statutory and mandatory provision of Section 7B of the Act which requires that all the disputes or differences arising between the telegraph authority and the subscriber, concerning telephone line, appliances or apparatus are to be decided by the statutory Arbitrator. Second defendant in the written statement submitted that there is no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff; that he is neither the subscriber nor the beneficiary of telephone in question; and that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against him; therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings, a preliminary issue "Whether the suit is barred by provision of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885" was framed. On this issue, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant argued that as per plaintiff's own showing it is a licensee of the Central Government, appointed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Indian Telegraph Act and is authorised and responsible to establish and maintain the telephone services in the metropolitan cities of Delhi and Bombay. Assuming the allegations contained in the plaint to be true, the plaintiff was bound to refer the disputes for statutory arbitration as provided by Section 78 of the Act. Therefore, suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued to the contrary.