Delhi High Court
Surinder Bhushan Gupta vs Manager Telephone Nigam Ltd. And ... on 10 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 224, 97 (2002) DLT 984, 2002 (63) DRJ 405
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 15.1.2001 and has filed the present writ petition seeking its quashing.
The relevant facts briefly noted are as under:-
The petitioner is aggrieved in particular of bill cycle dated 16.12.1997 for the period 1.10.1997 to 30.11.1997 in the sum of Rs. 47,774/- for its telephone. Case of the petitioner is that everage telephone bill was in the range of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. The bill for the billing cycle 16.12.1997 was grossly excessive and exhorbitant. In naturally pained the petitioner, who sought arbitration. The arbitrator considered the claims of the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the call charges and details of this particular bills have not been disclosed except the total amount. The respondents took the position that the petitioner had been enjoying dynamic STD facility on his telephone, which ruled out and possibility of misuse by any other person, in view of the locking facility, the code of which was known to the petitioner only. This according to the respondents obviates any possible misuse by an outsider. On the question of providing the details of the STD/ISD, calls included in the disputed bill dated 16.12.1997, the respondent had stated that detail billing was not available due to system constraints, and have filed a letter No. SPC/642/3&4/6438870/Legal dated 17.5.1999, in this connection. The respondents have also filed a letter dated 15.7.1999 No. GM(S-II)/MRC/4400/6438820 addressed to claimant in connection with the investigation done and the decision taken on the case.
3. The arbitration considered the entire matter including the petitioner's grievance of not being provided with the details of the STD calls on account of system constraints. However, appreciating the entire evidence, he ruled that due to the provision of the dynamic STD facility, which ruled out misuse of telephone by any third person, the petitioner cannot challenge the bill simply on the ground of average consumption. Any STD use is bound to inflate the call charges to a large extent.
4. The view taken by the arbitrator that the bill for Rs. 47,774/- cannot be said to be not payable simply because the details of cal charges is a reasonable and plausible view. This is essentially so since there was no possibility of misuse due to STD dynamic locking facility.
The position therefore that emerges is that there is no ground made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction with the award which does not suffer from any apparent error or excess of jurisdiction. While parting with the case, I would like to observe that the respondents need to take immediate steps, if not already in existence to ensure that the billing details are available to a subscriber when sought. With the present day advancement in information technology and techniques available, the excuse of system constraint is rather obdurate.
5. Mr. Piyush Sharma, counsel for the respondent, at this stage states that as of now arrangements have been made by the MTNL to make available all the ISD/STD details.
Writ petition is dismissed with these observations.
