RSA No.2538 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2538 of 2004 Date of Decision:06.11.2008 M/s Gian Singh Grover & Sons, Patiala ....appellant Versus Telecom Divisional Manager, Patiala & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, has been dismissed. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was a subscriber of Telephone No.218601, which was installed at the shop of plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the telephone connection and instrument always remained under his custody and control. The telephone bill prior to the dispute in question used to remain between Rs.700 to Rs.1200/-. However, the plaintiff received bills dated 01.10.1995 and 01.12.1995 for Rs.43,679/- and Rs.85,387/- totaling Rs.1,29,066/-, respectively. According to the plaintiff, this bill was due to the defect in the telephone lines or because of the mischief of some one else as there was no occasion for him to make such number of calls. The plaintiff requested the defendants for investigating the matter, but of no use. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, RSA No.2538 of 2004 2 Patiala and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator who gave his Award on 27.09.1998 and rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The Arbitrator being the officer of the defendants favoured the department and misconducted himself with the proceedings. Since the said Award was never made rule of the Court, same is no award in the eyes of law. However, defendants are threatening to recover the amount of Rs.1,29,066/- by illegal means. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim but to no effect. Hence this suit. The suit was contested by the respondents who filed written statement and raised preliminary objections that the suit is bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. They also disputed the maintainability of the suit in the present form and also alleged that the suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It was also stated that the plaintiff has already availed the statutory remedy as per Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the award of Arbitrator under the said Section is conclusive between the parties and it cannot be questioned in any court. On merits, it was averred that the bills in dispute had been correctly issued as per meter reading and the facility availed by the plaintiff. It was denied that the bills were issued due to the defect in the telephone lines etc. It was also stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the award by way of filing the present suit. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the recovery proceedings as initiated on the basis of Award dated 27.09.1998 as alleged in the head note of the plaint are illegal? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD RSA No.2538 of 2004 3 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred u/s 41 of Specific Relief Act?OPD 6. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the defendant department is recovering the amount in dispute from the plaintiff under the provisions of law. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2004. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal in this Court, challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that recovery of the disputed amount is illegal as the Award of the Arbitrator is null and void, as the proceedings for arbitration were initiated prior to coming into force of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Therefore, filing of the Award in Court was necessary and in the absence of filing the Award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Award has no force of law till the same is made rule of the Court and, therefore, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Counsel for the respondents supported the findings of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. However, RSA No.2538 of 2004 4 there is no merit in this appeal. Undisputedly, vide order dated 12.09.1997, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala has directed the dispute to be referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator gave his award on 27.09.1998. Thus, the Arbitrator was appointed after the coming into force of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this view of the matter, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable. Under this Act, award of an Arbitrator itself is enforceable as a decree of Court and it is not required to be made rule of Court. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to dispute the above stated facts and the applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, in these facts. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 06.11.2008 neenu