Civil Revision No. 1353 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1353 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.4.2011 *** Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Rakesh Kumar. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The suit of the petitioner-plaintiff BSNL, filed against the respondent-defendant, for recovery of Rs. 14075 along with pendente lite and further interest, has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009, at the preliminary stage by observing that the same is barred by jurisdiction and the remedy available to it is one under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Similar are the findings of the learned appellate Court below which also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010. This has necessitated the petitioner-plaintiff to file the instant revision petition. Heard. It emerges out from the paper book that the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs.14075/- along with interest pendente lite and future on the ground that the aforesaid amount is due towards the defendant, their user of telephone connection installed at his premises, which he failed to pay despite various reminder and notice and denied his liability on false and flimsy grounds. On appearance, the defendant disputed the bill amount and took the specific plea that as per Section 7-B of the Act ibid, the petitioner has to raise the dispute before an arbitrator. The learned trial Court framed preliminary issue in this regard and returned the findings against the petitioner and as said above, dismissed the suit. Civil Revision No. 1353 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file carefully. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is two folds, firstly, the dispute concerning bill amount is not covered under Section 7-B of the Act and secondly, the defendant never disputed the bill amount and hence, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to approach the arbitrator. The arguments have been scanned and I find no force in it. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act reads as under:- “Section 7-B : Arbitration of disputes :- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub- section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court." From the above, it is clear that in order to attract Section 7-B of the Act, there should be a dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided. In the case of Makhani Devi Banka Vs. Union of India AIR 1981 Orissa, 11, in the similar situation, it has been held as under:- “The legislative intention behind incorporation of S.7-B of the Act seems to be that disputes relating to telephone lines, appliances or apparatus between the subscriber and the telegraphs authority should be arbitrated upon Civil Revision No. 1353 of 2011 3 and finality has been attached to the award. There is no dispute before me that the telephone set provided to the defendant as a subscriber is an apparatus within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of S.7-B of the Act. Sub-section (1) is in wide terms and any dispute concerning the apparatus is covered by it. The bills in question related to the user of the apparatus. In the circumstances, I see no justification to accept the stand of learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India that the dispute in question was not covered by sub-sec. (1) of S.7-B of the Act.” In Union of India and another v. Firm Ramchand Naraindas, AIR 1995 MP 216, it has been held that in a matter relating to dispute regarding correctness of the telephone bill, suit for injunction restraining disconnection of the telephone facility was not maintainable as the dispute falls within the ambit of Section 7-B of the Act. In Telecom District Manager, Goa and others v. V. S. Demp and Co. and others (1996) 8 SCC 753, the Apex Court was considering the dispute relating to two bills. The Court has held that administrative instructions are not binding. The power to refer is given by the Parliament only with a view to see that the authority acts within reasonable limits and that when the subscriber disputes the correctness of the meter reading or operation of the apparatus etc., instead of litigating the dispute in a civil Court, it should be decided by the arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Act. In the case of District Manager, Telecom v. M. L. Ratna, AIR 2000 J&K 33, the Court has held that the disputed question of fact as to what should have been the correct amount of the bill is a matter which would be settled by taking resort to Section 7-B of the Act. Thus, in the light of above, it cannot be said that a dispute concerning bill amount of telephone, is not covered under Section 7-B of the Act. Coming to the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the own case of the petitioner in the suit was that a total amount of Rs.14075/- is due towards the user in respect of telephone Civil Revision No. 1353 of 2011 4 connection installed at his premises and the same was disconnected on account of non-payment. It is further the case of the plaintiff that despite repeated requests the defendant did not pay the bill amount and denied his liability on false and flimsy grounds. There would be a dispute so long as a claim is asserted by one party and denied by the other. Hence, from the above, it cannot be said that the defendant never disputed the bill amount. Once, it is held that there was a dispute concerning the bill amount, the dispute ought to have been referred to the arbitrator as provided under Section 7-B of the Act ibid, instead of rushing to the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction has been ousted by sub-Section(2) in the matters covered by sub-Section (1). Thus, the findings returned by the Courts below are affirmed and the suit of the plaintiff has rightly been dismissed. Accordingly, the instant revision petition, being without merit, is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 25 , 2011 Jiten