Jagedo Dens Cardeso vs Telecom District Manager and Another

E.S. Da Silva, J.—Leave to amend. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents to waive service. By consent of the parties the matter taken up for final hearing.

The petitioner is a resident at Mapusa and does bakery and pastry business known as ''Simonia Stores''. He has a telephone bearing No. 2064 in his shop - Although the telephone has STD facilities, he hardly requires to make any calls outside Goa. The phone is exclusively used to make local calls and calls from Panaji to Mapusa are mostly made by booking trunk calls. The number of local calls made and charged for every bi-monthly period to the petitioner were Nil, 50,140,50,140, 50, 10, Nil, Nil, 70 from 6.2.1990 till 6.6.1991. However for the period of 6th June, 1991 of 5th August 1991 the petitioner suddenly received a bill for Rs. 15181/ - in respect of local calls, Rs. 160/ - towards rental and Rs. 20/ - of trunk calls in a total sum of Rs. 15,361/ -. In the said bill a rebate of Rs. 869/ - towards interest on deposit was shown and accordingly a demand for Rs. 14,312/ - was made by the respondents. The petitioner protested against such bill and the Department then asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 180/ - only being Rs. 160/ - towards rental and Rs. 20/ - towards trunk calls.

Accordingly two bills were presented to the petitioner being one for Rs. 180 - and the other for Rs. 15,181/ -, the first one styled as provisional and the second as disputed. In the second bill no mention was made with regard to any rebate when the amount should have been correctly mentioned as Rs. 14,312/ - which has been kept pending during the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner was asked by letter dated 26.12.1991 to pay the amount of Rs. 15,181/ - on or before 10.1.1992. Against the demand the petitioner made a representation to the respondents by letter dated 31.8.1991 (Exhibit ''A''). After the representation the splitting of the bill was done and the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 180/ - while the remaining amount was kept in abeyance but by letter dated 26.12.1991 the petitioner reiterated again the demand for payment of Rs. 15,181/ -. Thereafter by letter dated 26th March, 1992 the petitioner requested the respondents to refer the dispute of excessive billing to arbitration because in the meantime the attempts made by him to get his grievances redressed did not find favour with the respondents. However, sometime in the third week of March, the petitioner found his phone disconnected. It is this action of the respondents to disconnect his phone No. 2064 and insisting with the petitioner for the payment of the bill for Rs. 15,361/ - which is being challenged by him by this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Shri Sharma, a learned Counsel for the respondents, has fairly stated that in view of the averments made by the petitioner the matter may be referred to the arbitration but the petitioner should be directed to pay atleast half of the amount of the disputed bill.

We are, however, of the view that there is no justification for such a prayer to be made on the part of the respondents. Admittedly the initial bill for Rs. 15,361/ - was split by the respondents after the petitioner protested against that excessive bill and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 180/ - only being Rs. 160/ - towards rental and Rs. 20/ - for trunk calls. The balance amount of that bill in the sum of Rs. 15,181/ - was kept in abeyance pending investigation. The respondents have not shown anything or even filed any affidavit to convince us that any investigation was actually carried on to find out whether the grievances of the petitioner against the demand for the payment of the bill for Rs. 15,181/ - were not justified. To be noted that there is no denial on the part of the respondents that prior to that the petitioner''s bills were always showing that the use made by him in respect of his telephone was moderate and on several occasions the bills were Nil and the calls which were availed of by the petitioner were even below the average calls to which he was entitled. This happened from 6.2.1990 to 6.2.1991. It was only for the period from 6th June 1991 to 5th August 1991 that suddenly and for the first time a staggering bill for Rs. 15,181/ - was sent to the petitioner in respect of which the respondents themselves allowed him to pay Rs. 180/ - only pending investigation of his grievances. Being so in our opinion there was no reason for the respondents to disconnect the petitioner''s phone unless the findings of the investigation were showing that the calls allegedly made by the petitioner were correct and the bill required no rectification. The petitioner has admittedly applied before the respondents that the dispute with regard to the balance amount of that bill should be referred to arbitration. Shri Sharma has also agreed that the dispute be referred to the arbitration.

In the circumstances we do not think it necessary to make any direction to the petitioner to effect any payment in respect of the disputed bill before the arbitration proceedings are completed and a final adjudication of the dispute is arrived at by the learned arbitrator. In this view of the matter we allow the petition and make the rule absolute. The respondents are directed to refer the disputed bill of the petitioner to arbitration u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act with a further direction that the learned arbitrator dispose of the matter within 45 days. The respondents are in the meantime directed to reconnect the petitioner''s phone forthwith and, in any manner, within 24 hours from today.