Dismissed

V.J.Antony v. Sub Divisional Manager Chengalam

Kerala HC3 Oct 2008OP/9524/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an arbitration award regarding disputed telephone bills and rebates. The High Court held the award was not vitiated by perversity, illegality, or erroneous jurisdiction, thus refusing interference and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was denied the requested interference with the arbitration award regarding the telecom bill dispute.

V.J.Antony Vs Sub Divisional Manager Chengalam — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 9524 of 2002(H)

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

V.J.ANTONY,AGED 75 YEARS,VAYALUNKAL, CHENGALAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 585

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE

¶11

SRI.GEOSHY TONIO

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. SUB DIVISIONAL MANAGER,CHENGALAM EXCHANGE,BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 585

¶15

2. GENERAL MANAGER,BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶16

3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶17

4. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, THE ARBITRATOR,ASST.GENERAL MANAGER,C-DOT REGIONAL REPAIR CENTRE,OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC SRI.B.JAYASANKER, SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO R4

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER ON CMP. NO.17024/2002 IN OP. NO.9524/2002

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

3.10.2008 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶25

P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 1.7.96 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER , TELECOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶26

P2:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA AND DEEPIKA DT. 19.6.98.

¶27

P3:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR.

¶28

P4:- COPY OF THE CALL DETAIL CHART DURING THE PERIOD 26.9.97 TO 31.7.01.

¶29

P5:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.4-59/85 TR DT. 9.4.86. NMO.2-16/94 TR DT. 11.5.94 NO.2 -16/94 TR DT. 15.7.94 NO.2-3/85-PHM DT. 6.1.86.

¶30

P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN BRIEF PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR.

¶31

P7:- COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 25.2.02.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

0V. GIRI, J.

OP.NO. 9524 of 2002

Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is a subscriber of telephone bearing No.894334 of Chengalam Exchange. According to the petitioner, his average monthly calls were to the tune of 836/ for the period 1997 to 2001. While so, the petitioner was served with a bill dated 11.10.1998 for an amount of Rs.12,020/- . A complaint was preferred by the petitioner. Ultimately the matter was referred for arbitration under section 7B of the Telegraph Act and this resulted in Ext.P7 award dated 25.2.2002 . Part of the contentions raised by the petitioner is accepted by learned Arbitrator who is also the Assistant General Manager, C-Dot Regional Repair Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The Arbitrator directed that the petitioner be given a rebate of 4113 calls from the disputed bill and he was directed to pay the balance amount. This has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶40

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. I

¶41

OP.9524 /2002 2

¶42

have perused Ext.P7 award. The contention of the petitioner has to a great extent been accepted by the Arbitrator in as much as the Arbitrator has found that the department has not followed the prescribed guidelines in the case of dealing excess metering complaint. Therefore the arbitrator has given 50% rebate. I cannot say that the award Ext.P7 challenged in this writ petition is vitiated by perversity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction nor

¶43

is it vitiated by any illegality. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P7. The OP is dismissed. I also take note of the fact that out of the total disputed amount of Rs.12020/- the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.2500/- pursuant to an interim order passed by this court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The original petition is bereft of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶44

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

¶45

Pmn/

¶46

OP.9524 /2002 3

V.J.Antony v. Sub Divisional Manager Chengalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.J.Antony v. Sub Divisional Manager Chengalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N.Sajeevan & Others Vs K.P.S.C.

Sudheer P and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

John.K.J. Vs the Dy.Chief Engineer,Kalpetta,Kseb &Anr

Malankara Catholic Diocese Vs Inspector General of Registrn.

Alexander J.Anthraper Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Pillai Vs State of Kerala