Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 12 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India

2014-01-08

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. Being aggrieved of demand raised in pursuance of the impugned bills by the respondents with respect to telephone connection No. 216577, installed at his premises, the petitioner seeks quashing of arbitration proceedings and Award passed therein on 04.03.1997 (Annexure P-4). A writ of mandamus is also sought against respondent No. 2 not to disconnect the said telephone connection being used in the premises of the petitioner. Issuing notice of motion on 23.04.1997, the petitioner had been asked by this Court to deposit half of the amount demanded by the respondents. Thereafter, while admitting the petition on 19.01.1998, the demand in pursuance of the impugned bills was stayed. The impugned bills pertained to two spells i.e. from September to November 1995 for an amount of Rs. 1,37,689/- and from November 1995 to January 1996 for an amount of Rs. 1,07,422/-. 2. Claim of the petitioner is that this time demand raised by the respondents vide two impugned bills is exorbitant as earlier he had been receiving telephone bills on an average of about Rs. 1500/- per month. It is further averred that such exorbitant bills could not have emerged by genuine use of the telephone connection of the petitioner and his family members, who have allegedly been frugal in using the same. 3. Per contra version of the respondents is that on representation made by the petitioner to the department of telecommunication, the matter was looked into. On demand of the petitioner, an Arbitrator was appointed, who after going into the details of the bills and record had rendered Award on 09.04.1996 (Annexure P-1) but the petitioner did not accept even the said verdict. Lastly, dismissal of writ petition has been sought. 4. While going through the paper book, counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was using telephone connection bearing No. 216577, which was installed at his residential premises in Patiala. This connection had STD and ISD facilities. Marriage of the daughter of the petitioner was to take place in USA on 04.02.1996, where elder brother of the petitioner was residing for the last more than 20 years. Son-in-law of the petitioner was also residing there. The dispute between the parties is about only two bills and the period of dispute is from September 1995 to January 1996. All the bills, excepting the said two impugned ones, stood paid. 6. Son-in-law of the petitioner was also residing there. The dispute between the parties is about only two bills and the period of dispute is from September 1995 to January 1996. All the bills, excepting the said two impugned ones, stood paid. 6. Dispute having been raised about the genuineness of the bills, the petitioner sought redressal of his grievance through the court at Patiala where he filed a civil suit, wherein appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was sought. Vide order dated 19.08.1996 for determination of the dispute between the parties, an Arbitrator was appointed by Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala. After receiving information from the petitioner vide affidavit (Annexure P-3) and going through the respective claim of the parties before him, the Arbitrator rendered award (Annexure P-4) on 04.03.1997. 7. The Arbitrator found no justification for granting any rebate on the bills and, thus, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Merely because earlier telephone bills of the petitioner were not of heavy amount, is not a ground to raise a presumption in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents that the impugned bills are not genuine or have wrongly been issued for inflated amounts. Rather, there are many factors which militate against the case of the petitioner. Those are as under:-- i) This telephone connection had been provided from an electric exchange having dynamic facility and, thus, ruling out chances of any spurt; ii) Admittedly, telephone of the petitioner was having STD and ISD facility during the period under dispute; and iii) STD/ISD facility had not been locked by the petitioner. 8. As per the fault card, neither there was any complaint nor was there any error during the period of both the disputed bills except for a complaint on 30.11.1995, which too was cleared on 01.12.1995. Incidentally this fault had also appeared after the last ISD call, which was made on 09.11.1995. 9. The Arbitrator after going through the entire record and rival claims of the parties, had come to the conclusion that the disputed calls had been made only to two ISD numbers viz. 0015106514207 and 0014084334204. Other calls including STD and ISD to various other numbers are not in dispute. 10. 9. The Arbitrator after going through the entire record and rival claims of the parties, had come to the conclusion that the disputed calls had been made only to two ISD numbers viz. 0015106514207 and 0014084334204. Other calls including STD and ISD to various other numbers are not in dispute. 10. The Arbitrator appraising sequence and duration of calls and also their inter-connection had come to a firm finding that the disputed calls were made only from this telephone number. The findings of the Arbitrator are based on facts and could not be refuted from any cogent and convincing material. Relevant observations of the Arbitrator in the Award (Annexure P-4) are on the next page:-- The petitioner had disputed calls made to two ISD Nos. 0015106514207 and 0014084334204 only. No other calls have been denied by the petitioner. But the time gap between the STD calls to various Nos. and ISD calls is quite negligible. For example on 07.09.1997, an ISD call was there at 2209 hrs. followed by STD call at 2219 hrs. and 2215 hrs. and again followed by ISD call at 2217 hrs. and again STD call at 2227 hrs. Similarly on 26.09.1995, the calls made at 0827 hrs., 0835 hrs, 0915 hrs and 0959 hrs, have been accepted but the ISD calls made at 0039 hrs., 0628 hrs, 0839 hrs, 0949 hrs and 0951 hrs have been disputed which does not stand any logic. On 06.10.1996 also, STD call was made at 0731 hrs. followed by ISD calls at 0823 hrs, 0916 hrs., 0933 hrs., 0936 hrs., 0951 hrs., 1058 hrs., 1258 hrs., 2113 hrs., 2126 hrs. 2133 hrs, 2143 hrs, 2224 hrs, again followed by STD call at 2225 hrs. and again ISD calls at 2230 hrs, 2234 hrs, 2238 hrs., and 2255 hrs. and again ISD calls at 2230 hrs., 2234 hrs., 2238 hrs and 2255 hrs. STD call made at 2225 hrs. has been accepted but the ISD calls made from 0823 hrs. to 2224 hrs. and 2230 hrs to 2255 hrs. have been disputed which does not stand any reasoning. The STD and ISD calls both are appearing on the same days and with the varying time gaps. The telephone of the petitioner was working with STD/ISD facility during the periods under dispute. The telephone stands provided from an electronic exchange and the dynamic facility was also available. have been disputed which does not stand any reasoning. The STD and ISD calls both are appearing on the same days and with the varying time gaps. The telephone of the petitioner was working with STD/ISD facility during the periods under dispute. The telephone stands provided from an electronic exchange and the dynamic facility was also available. The petitioner was free to keep the STD/ISD facility locked using the dynamic facility. Moreover, as per the fault card also, there was no complaint of the petitioner during the period under dispute except 30.11.1995 which too was cleared on 1.12.1995. This fault, however, also appeared after the last ISD call which was made on 09.11.1995. There is no justification of granting any rebate. As such no rebate is allowed in Bill dated 11/95 amounting to Rs. 1,37,689/- for the period from 16.08.1995 to 15.10.1995; and bill dated 1/96 amounting to Rs. 1,06,422/- for the period from 16.10.1995 to 15.12.1995. 11. Award (Annexure P-4) is based on factual matrix and evaluation thereof. It is duly supported with the facts and is punctuated with reasons referred to in support of findings in the Award. Counsel for the petitioner has sought support from M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. 1996 AIR 2476 SC urging that because the Award of the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 is final and is not questionable in any court of law, it was required to be supported by reasons. It is claimed that if reasons are not there, the Award cannot be sustained. 12. Going through the Award, leaves no manner of doubt that not only the entire facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner have been discussed but the Arbitrator on discussion of the reasons with facts, had reached the conclusion and rendered the Award. When the Award is based on facts and is duly punctuated with reasons, no fault can be found with the same. The authority cited by the counsel for the petitioner is, thus, of no help to him. 13. Assertion of the petitioner that whenever needed, he and his family members had been using the Public Call Office (PCO) and had not been making international calls from the disputed telephone connection, is a plea without any proof and in fact, the same is unconvincing too. 13. Assertion of the petitioner that whenever needed, he and his family members had been using the Public Call Office (PCO) and had not been making international calls from the disputed telephone connection, is a plea without any proof and in fact, the same is unconvincing too. The petitioner had not been locking the STD/ISD facility even though the connection was from the dynamic exchange. The impugned Award is well reasoned and self speaking; it has also taken into account all the pleas raised by the petitioner in his affidavit. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned Award and the impugned proceedings. Upholding the demand vide the impugned bills and refusing to quash the proceedings, as also the Award emerging therefrom, the present writ petition is dismissed.