M L VIJ Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the Award dated 16.8.2003 given by the Arbitrator. Petitioner had certain disputes regarding excess billing in respect of his telephone. Telephone was disconnected on account of non-payment of bills. The same was subsequently restored during the arbitration proceedings upon certain payments as directed by the Arbitrator being made by the petitioner.

(2.) The crux of the controversy before the Arbitrator was the petitioner's claim of inflated bills. In particular : bill dated 9.1.2001 for Rs.15,010/-; bill dated 9.2.2001 for Rs.30,214/- and bill dated 9.3.2001 for Rs.28,874/- The case of the petitioner is that for the period November 2000 to February 2001, a sum of Rs.69,056/- was charged for calls not made. These excessive calls could not have been made from his telephone and are a result of his telephone line being tampered by outsiders in collusion with MTNL staff.

(3.) It is not disputed before me that the Arbitrator gave sufficient opportunities to the parties to plead their case, and lead evidence before him. The Arbitrator on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence before him reached the conclusion that calls had been made to a number of 0900 level for chatting. This happened when the phone was not locked by using dynamic STD control facility. The Arbitrator held that the subscriber had not been using dynamic lock STD facility sincerely and this had led to excess billing of his phone. Petitioner could have avoided the excess billing by using the dynamic STD lock facility. Hence petitioner is responsible for the balance outstanding bills of Rs.69,056/-. The Arbitrator disposed of the matter holding that the petitioner was liable to pay the outstanding charges as noted above and in case of non-payment this could be recovered by resorting to ITR 443.