Award passed on the
basis of the investigation made by the field officers. Copy of the
investigation not served on the subscriber. Award of the arbitrator is in violation
of the principles of natural justice. Liable to be struck down. [ M/s. Mohammed Ashraf and Co vs Union of India. OP.No.13427
of 1996. 28th July, 1998.
Kerala High Court . A.S.Venkatachala Moorthy (J)]
Bill pertaining to
the period from 16-2-1996 to 15-4-1996. Before the arbitrator appointed under
Sec.7B of the Telegraph Act, a specific contention was taken that if the
Telecom Authorities were asked to produce the computerized statement showing
the calls that will reveal the position and prove the case of the subscriber.
Telecom Authorities furnished the STD particulars for the period from 16-4-1996
to 15-6-1996. Non supply of details for the disputed period seriously affected
the interest of the subscriber, because had the Department supplied the details
the subscriber demanded he would have
verified the same and made his submissions . Award set aside and direction
issued to supply the details pertaining to the disputed period. [Gordhanbhai Patel vs Union of India. O.P.No. 11561 of 1997,
dated 22nd July, 1998 (Kerala). A.S.Venkatachala Moorthy (J)]
Allegation that the
telephone of the petitioner was tapped by another person against whom Vigilence
has conducted an enquiry. Without verifying the said intelligence report
arbitrator passed an award. Award liable to be set aside. [ G.H.Subramania Iyer vs. Union of India . OP.No. 6968 of 1995, dt
28th October, 1998. (Kerala). A.S.Venkitachala Moorthy(J)]
Claim of the
subscriber that statement of Department not furnished, not given the MLOE
report, and there is no discussion of the case of the petitioner. Mere
statement of the arbitrator that after
careful examination and detailed consideration he is of opinion that due to
some mechanical faults or other explained reasons, and that the spurt of
excessive billing was due to genuine use by the subscriber is not
sufficient. Award is liable to be set
aside. [ Varghese Pulimoottil vs Union of India.
OP.No. 16194 of 1994. Dated 9th October, 1998.(Kerala) A.S.Venkatachala
Moorthy (J)
Arbitrator relied on
materials supplied by the Department , copy of which was not provided to the
subscriber. Award is violative of the principles of natural justice. [ Thomas Jacob vs. Union of India. O.P.No. 17944 of 1994,
Dated 21st October,1998.(Kerala) .A.S.Venkatahala Moorthy (J)]
Instances of
mistakes is clearly visible from the statement of STD-ISD particulars. No
proper explanation by the arbitrator. Award liable to be set aside. [ M/s. Mohammed Ashraf vs Union of India. OP.No. 18449 of
1995, Dated 29th October, 1998. A.S.Venktatachala Moorthy (J)]
National Commission
has held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the award of
the arbitrator passed under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. [The Telecom District Engineer v. R. Shanmugham 1997(2) CPR 115.]
Arbitrator while passing an award under Sec.7B shall pass a
reasoned award. The reasons wound
indicate as to how the mind of the
arbitrator was applied to the dispute and how he arrived at the decision. The only obvious remedy available to the
aggrieved persons against the award is judicial review under Art.226 of the
Constitution of India.
[M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2476 = AIR
1996 SCW 3062= JT 1996(1) SC 215 ]
A reasoned awarded was passed by the arbitrator. Conclusion drawn by him based on evidence
and readings given by metes fixed in Exchange.
It cannot be held that the award is based on surmises and conjectures
and cannot be interferred under Art.266 of the Constitution. [Union of India v. S.J. Pandit.
AIR 1997 Ker. 153.]
A complaint regarding excessive billing referred to
arbitration. An award was made by the
arbitrator. The arbitrator called for
further evidence. Without hearing the
subscriber modified the award. It was
held that an arbitrator cannot suo motu correct the award. [M/s. Jutex v. Telecom Divisional Engineer.
AIR 1993 Bom. 284]
An arbitrator appointed under Sec.7-B by the Central
Government could be an official belonging to the Central Government and indeed
an official belonging to the telephone department itself. The arbitrator so appointed has to act in a
judicial and fair manner and free from departmental bias. He can be removed by the Court in exercise
of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if a case of actual bias
is established. [S. Kanyalal v. Union of
India. AIR 1990 A.P.1]
Complaint was filed alleging denial of telephone
connection. It was held by the State
Consumer Forum. Delhi that an applicant
who registered for telephone by depositing registration fee is not a
consumer. [R.N. Gupta v. Union of
India. 1997 CCJ 263 Delhi.]
A complaint was filed by a subscriber alleging various
omissions in the Telephone directories.
It was held b the Tamilnadu State Forum that in view of Rule 457 no such
claim will be maintainable. [ The district Telecom Engineer v. K.
Rathina 1997(1) CPR 219]