DISTRICT ENGINEER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT vs S.M.MARUTHAMBAL

THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite party the Telecom District Engineer, Karaikkudi against whom an award has been passed. The case of the complainant is that as regards his telephone for the period from 26.7.1993 to 25.9.1993 bill was issued for Rs. 35.012/-. THIS bill is definitely excessive because he had not used his telephone that much, and the bill amounts for earlier periods were much less. About this he complained to the opposite party and he received a reply that the matter would be investigated and reported and then they sent a communication stating that the matter was investigated and found that the meter was working alright and there was no defect and the bill amount was not excessive as alleged. Not satisfied, alleging there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint was filed.

THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the bill amount was correct and true and the complainant is liable to pay that amount. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence accepted the case of the complainant, and holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, passed an award declaring the bill issued is invalid and directing the opposite party to issue a fresh bill after reconsideration of the matter and it awarded a cost of Rs. 500/-.

In the appeal now it is contended that the order of the District Forum that there was deficiency ill service on the part of the opposite party is not sustainable and it is not supported by any evidence or the probabilities in the case. We find much force in this contention. Apart from contending that the bill was excessive there is no evidence whatsoever has been let in by the complainant. It is indisputable that the onus is on the complainant to prove that the bill is excessive and that can be proved by him by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence. But according to the District Forum the opposite party would say that they have investigated the matter and they found the meter and the allied equipments quite alright and they were hot defective and the bill was also not excessive, but they have not filed any documents in support of such a claim. But as Stated above, the onus is on the complainant to prove that the bill is excessive. If any documents would be to the advantage of the complainant he could have given notice to the opposite parties to produce those documents. That has not been done. Only because the documents relating to the investigations have not been filed by the opposite party, it cannot be held that the bill was indeed excessive one.

FURTHER the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court Shri M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & Ors., JT 1996 (1) SC 215, in which it has been stated in para 4 as follows : "It is a statutory remedy provided under the Act and, therefore, in a dispute as regards the amount claimed in the demand raised, the only remedy provided is by way of arbitration under Section 7B of the Act."

Considering all these we are of the view that it is a fit case that may be referred to an Arbitrator under Section 7(b). In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. We direct the opposite parties to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ____________