JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed.

2. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, learned counsel for the appellant while narrating the facts of the case submitted that the son of respondent No.1 (since deceased) purchased a mobile connection bearing No.9915603649 on 26.12.2006 from the appellant-company, which is a service provider and the said connection was activated on the same date i.e. 26.12.2006 and thereafter, he continued to use the connection without any difficulty. However, on 05.09.2007, the son of respondent No.1 met with an accident and unfortunately he died. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum seeking compensation but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition bearing No.CWP-18013- 2009 before this Court, which was disposed of on 06.07.2010 granting liberty to respondent No.1 to raise an arbitration dispute before the prescribed authority of the Central Government under the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the learned Arbitrator, who passed the award dated 21.06.2011 by fastening liability upon the appellant to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation for severe deficiency in service, mental and physical harassment and failure to provide grievance redressal mechanism, within thirty days from the issuance of the aforesaid award, failing which, it will attract interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the award, the learned Arbitrator awarded the aforesaid amount on the ground that on 16.08.2007, the outgoing calls from the mobile connection of the son of respondent No.1 were stopped and later on, even the incoming calls were also stopped. It was the claim of respondent No.1 that on 03.09.2007, the customer care service was approached but no action was taken and when the son of respondent No.1 met with the accident on 05.09.2007, he could not contact his father or anybody else due to the non-functional mobile network connection and he died because of excessive bleeding and delayed medical help since he could not inform anyone at the time of the accident and therefore on that basis, the learned Arbitrator awarded the aforesaid compensation to respondent No.1. Thereafter, the appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, which were dismissed on 19.08.2014 and the learned Court observed that the learned Arbitrator had passed the award after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties and the award can be challenged only on the grounds which are incorporated under Section 34 of the Act but as per the learned Court, no ground was made out for interference and therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Department of Telecommunications had issued a directive dated 10.05.2005 (Annexure A-2) and another directive dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure A-3) regarding proper verification of the documents of connection holders and accordingly, it was the duty of the appellant to have verified the documents required to be submitted by all the subscribers, including the son of respondent No.1 and due to deficiency of the same, action was required to have been taken and therefore, barring of the mobile network connection cannot be construed to be fault of the appellant.

5. Mr. Pabbi further submitted that the learned Arbitrator has not considered that the death of the son of respondent No.1 was not a direct result of disconnection of the mobile services and as to how t