JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. The petitioner is the subscriber of Telephone No. 3300170, which is provided as a STD/ISD/PCO. She was served with two bills dated 15-8-1992 and 1-9-1992 (Annexures-B and C) for Rs. 13,455/- and Rs. 14,236/- respectively for the periods 25-7-1992 to 10-8-1992 and 10-8-1992 to 25-8-1992. According to her, the billing of calls made from her telephone (STD/PCO) was computerised and the computer print-out showed that the amount due for the calls made during those periods were only Rs. 6,421/- and Rs. 7,139/-. She, therefore, contended that the bills were excessive and filed Writ Petition No. 28127 of 1992 challenging the said bills. This Court directed reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and accordingly the dispute relating to the said bills was referred to arbitration to the third respondent. The Arbitrator, after hearing the parties, has passed a reasoned award dated 27-4-1994, (Annexure-A) holding that the two bills issued by the department are correct and petitioner is liable to pay the said amount. The department has thereafter claimed the balance amount due in regard to the said bills, by its letter dated 19-5-1994, (Annexure-F). Being, aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition for Annexures-A and F.
2. The petitioner contends that she has installed a computerised billing equipment which measures the number of calls made from the said telephone and bills the calls, and the said equipment has been approved by the department; and as per the print-outs from the said billing equipment, the petitioner’s liability is only Rs. 6,421/- and Rs. 7,139/- for the said periods; and as the bills issued by the department were in excess of the said amounts, the department’s bills are erroneous; and this aspect has not been properly considered or appreciated by the Arbitrator while making the award, even though the print-outs were produced before the Arbitrator.
3. The decision of the Arbitrator is final. Even a wrong finding or conclusion on facts, by the Arbitrator is binding on the parties. This Court in its writ jurisdiction, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator. Unless there is violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, or there is any malafide or bias on the part of the Arbitrator or the findings reached are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, or irrational, on the face of the award, this Court will not interfere with the award. The Supreme Court in M. L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & Ors. , has held that under Section 7-B, the award of the Arbitrator is conclusive in regard to a dispute or complaint of the subscriber that the bill is excessive; and a High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review in considering the correctness or legality of an award, does not act as a Court of Appeal, but acts within the narrow limits of judicial review. In the light of the said principles, let me examine the award in this case.
4. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. Nor is it her case that there is any bias or malafide on the part of the Arbitrator. The only question that remains for consideration is whether the Award contains any finding or reasoning which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable so as to call for interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. The Arbitrator has considered and rejected the petitioner’s contention that if the departments bills are in excess of the billing made and recorded, by the computerised measuring equipment installed by the subscriber, the subscriber is liable to pay only the amount shown by the print-outs from his computerised call measuring equipment and not the amount claimed in the department bills. He has found that the computerised measuring equipment installed by the petitioner, was under the control of the petitioner, that the department has no access or control over the said equipment, that only the supplier of the equipment and the petitioner had access to the equipment; that the question whether the said equipment installed by the petitioner is properly working at any given point of time is a matter that cannot be verified by the department; and that unless any defect or error in the billing done by the department is made out, petitioner is not entitled to challenge such bills merely on the ground that the print-out from her equipment showed a different amount. The Arbitrator has held that metering in the Telephone Exchange is also computerised and the same is made available to the subscribers; and the equipment is put in use by the department only after a thorough test check; and that when the Arbitrator asked the petitioner’s Counsel to produce the print-outs for the disputed period, some print-outs for different periods, in pieces, were produced and such print-outs did not even show the STD/PCO telephone number and therefore could not be considered as satisfactory evidence. It is thus seen that congent reasons are given by the Arbitrator for reaching his decision.
6. I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the said reasoned award. If the petitioner’s contention is to be accepted, then the metering maintained by the Department for Billing should be ignored and metering/measuring of calls by the subscribers will have to be accepted. Preferring the metering by a subscriber will lead to manipulation and tampering of meters. There can be no doubt that print-outs from the computerised measuring equipment installed by the subscriber at his PCO for the purpose of billing her customers, can be used as a peace of evidence in support of any complaint regarding excess billing, if the subscriber proves, (a) that the metering was defect free, and (b) the print-out is complete and related to his telephone. On such proof, a full investigation as to whether there was any defect or error in the department’s meter, would become necessary. But if the evidence shows that the department’s measuring equipment was an order, then the readings from department’s equipment will have to prevail.
7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to pay the amounts due.
8. Petition dismissed.
