PRITHVI CHAND SHARMA Vs. M.T.N.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the subscriber of the MTNL Telephone No. 7520386, which was installed at his residence. The petitioner received a bill of Rs 35,297/ - for the billing cycle dated 01.11.1995 followed by bill of the cycle dated 01.01.1996 for Rs 89,702/ -. According to the petitioner, he protested against the aforesaid billing and wrote a letter dated 09.01.1996 to SDO (Telephones), Idgah Exchange, Delhi, seeking disconnection of STD facility. The petitioner also sought details of the calls made by him from 16.08.1995 to 15.12.1995. This was followed by a bill for the billing cycle dated 01.03.1996 for Rs.26,820/ -. Since no relief was given to the petitioner, despite his having made various complaints, a petition under Section 7 -B of Indian Telegraph Act was filed by him before the learned Civil Judge, sometime in the year 1998. The aforesaid petition came to be decided vide order dated 08.09.1999, directing the Central Government to refer the disputes between the parties to the Arbitrator, who was to pass award, within the time stipulated by law in this regard.

(2.) VIDE order dated 11.10.1999, Assistant Director General, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, nominated Shri R.K. Singh, CAO(TR), S -II, MTNL, Delhi to be the Arbitrator. He was directed to give award within four months unless extended by mutual consent of the parties. It appears that Mr R.K. Singh did not enter upon the reference and resigned from the service. As a result thereof, Mr K.A Sharma, CAO (Co -od), MTNL, Delhi was appointed as Arbitrator under Section 7 -B of the Indian Telegraph Act vide order dated 28.02.2005. The petitioner submitted a claim before the Arbitrator seeking cancellation of bills in question. The claim was contested by the respondent -MTNL. The Arbitrator vide award dated 27.01.2012, directed the petitioner/claimant to pay a sum of Rs 1,57,195/ -, towards outstanding bills dated 01.11.1995, 01.01.1996, 01.03.1996, 01.05.1996 and 01.07.1996, along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the pay dates of the respective bills to the date of award. He further directed that if the payment is not made within two months from the date of award, the petitioner shall also pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid award dated 27.01.2012, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IT is primarily for the Arbitrator and not for the Court to go into disputed questions of fact and take an appropriate view on them. The Arbitrator duly considered the contentions of the petitioner and having noted that since he had been provided with a dynamic locking facility and had not made any complaint alleging any cable breakdown during the period in question arrived at a finding that there was no scope for misuse of the telephone by an outsider. The award rendered by the sole Arbitrator, therefore, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.