AMRISH KAUSHISH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals as they are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum. Shimla, Camp at Solan, dated 19.1.2001. By the said order, the learned Forum below has referred the case to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the respondents - Telephone Department as defined under Section 7 -B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, within a period of three months. A direction has also been issued that the telephone connection of the appellant will not be disconnected for non -payment of the disputed bills meanwhile. It has also been stipulated therein that the appellant i.e. the original complainant shall pay the amount of the disputed bills as determined by the Arbitrator within a period of 45 days of the date of the award, failing which, it will be open to the respondents Telephone Department to proceed in accordance with the rules.

(2.) The impugned order, referred to above, has been passed in respect to two complaints filed by the appellant before the learned Forum below. They were with regard to the excessive telephone tariff for the period 6.2.1998 to 15.4.1998 amounting to Rs. 56,224/ - and for the period 16.4.1998 to 15.6.1998 amounting to Rs. 22,406/ -. According to the complainant i.e. the appellant, he was not engaged in any commercial business and the above mentioned disputed bills were in respect of his residential telephone No. 33264 installed at Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. In the more or less similar replies filed to both the complaints, the respondents as opposite parties contested the said complaints on merits and took the plea that the above mentioned bills were as per actual use by the complainant who had both STD and ISD facility in respect of his said telephone. Despite the above respective contentions having been raised in their pleadings by the parties, the impugned order and been passed in a cryptic manner referring the disputed bills for arbitration in the matter referred to above. Reliance for adopting this course has been placed on a decision of the National Consumer Commission reported as Divisional Engineer, Telecom Moradabad v. Virender Kumar, II (1997) CPJ 60 (NC).

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have examined the record. At the outset, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a very recent decision reported as Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 2008. the impugned order is untenable and deserves to be set aside on this short ground. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India and another v. Jagjit Industries and another, (1999) 4 SCC 506.