A dispute concerning the functioning and working of any telegraph line, apparatus, or appliance, including allegations of malfunctioning or misuse, falls within the purview of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and is subject to statutory arbitration.

( 1 ) THE respondent-company is a subscriber with regard to telephone connection No. 619880 which was installed at D-l, Lajpat Nagar, Part III, New Delhi, on 16th June, 1979. A consolidated bill for Rs. 1. 679/ 98 P. inclusive of rental, phonogram and trunk call charges for the period 16th June, 1979 to 20th November, 1979, was raised by the Telephone Department of the appellant against the respondent-company. However, for the subsequent period 21st November, 1979 to 20th February, 1980, the telephone bill escalated to Rs. 15,146/35p. , the meter reading showing as many as 37,504 local calls. The respondent-company made a representation to the Telephone Department with regard to the exorbitant number of calls registered on their aforesaid telephone, inter alia, urging that the steep rise in the number of calls was attributable to misuse of the telephone lines by the Line and other staff of the Telephone Department. However, this assertion of the respondent-company appears to have been refuted in categorical terms vide letter dated 16th May, 1980, of the Area Manager (South ). Thereupon, the respondent-company moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the dispute between the parties fell within the ambit of Section 7-8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, as amended from time to time, i (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act), which provided for statutory arbitration in respect of disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided.

( 2 ) THE application was resisted by the appellant-Union of India on the short ground that the bill in question was not exorbitant, excessive or erroneous. They refuted that the Line Staff of the Telephone Department had misused the telephone resulting in the escalation of the amount of the bill. On the other hand they asserted that the bill had been issued on the basis of the calls recorded in the associated Meter and it was apparently due to the excessive use of S. T. D. facility available on the said telephone. They further contended that any default in payment of the bill entails disconnection of the telephone concerned under Rule 44-3 of Indian Telegraph Rules and as such the dispute in question did not fall within the domain of Section 7-B of the Act.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid contention of the appellant-Union of India was, however, spurned by the learned Sub-Judge as being untenable and he directed that the dispute between the parties be REFERRED TO statutory arbitration in terms of Section 7-B of the Act read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come up in this appeal against the aforesaid order dated 11 th August, 1980 of the learned Sub-Judge.

( 4 ) THE controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass inasmuch as all that has to be seen in whether the dispute between the parties, as detailed above, falls within the purview of Section 7-B of the Act or not. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly and candidly conceded that a telephone appliance or apparatus falls within the definition of the expression "telegraph" as given in Section 3 (1) of the Act. In other words, it is beyond the pale of controversy that Section 7-B would be attracted to a dispute concerning any telephone line, appliance or apparatus. Thus, the short question for determination is whether the instant suit is a dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, as contemplated by Section 7-B which reads as under :

" (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such dete