1984 Supreme(MP) 420

J. S. Verma, J.
Union of India v. Ku. Kanaklata Mishra
S. A. No. 507 of 1978 (J); Decided on 4-8-1984.

Headnote:(1) Telegraph Act, 1835 -- S. 7-B -- claim of damages arising out of disconnection of telephone -- covered under -- civil suit not maintainable.

        (2) Telegraph Act, 1885 -- S. 7B & 7B (2) -- arbitration contemplated under -- provisions of Arbitration Act not applicable -- sub-section (2) makes award conclusive between the parties.

        The material facts are these. The plaintiff respondent is subscriber of a telephone at Jagdalpur, District Bastar. The plaintiff alleged that in spite of there being no default by her, her telephone was wrongly disconnected on 6-9-1974. It was alleged that the telephone connection was not restored and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the disconnection of her telephone was illegal and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day from the date of disconnection till restoration of the telephone. There is no dispute that the telephone connection was subsequently restored and therefore, the plaintiffs claim survived only for recovery of damages. The suit was contested by the defendants, inter-alia, on the ground that the same was not maintainable by virtue of section 7-B (ibid).

        The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of damages, restoration of the telephone connection having already been made. It was held that section 78 (ibid) was no impediment and the suit was maintainable. The first appeal in the District Court filed by the defendants has been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal by tile defendants.

        Held : The decision of R. N. Misra, J. (as he then was) in A.I.R. 1977 Orissa 48 (Nityananda Sahu v. Postmaster General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and others) is directly on the point. It was held therein that the provisions of Arbitration Act are not applicable to the arbitration contemplated under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is also pointed out that sub-section (2) of section 7-B makes the award of the arbitrator conclusive between the parties to the dispute and makes it immune from challenge in any Court. This also is a factor to support the conclusion that the general scheme of the Arbitration Act is not applicable to the statutory arbitration provided by section 7-8 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. On this conclusion, it was held that the mandate contained in section 7-B is clear and it ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and creates an alternate forum for determination of the disputes covered by it. A suit in respect of a dispute covered by section 7-B was therefore, held to be not maintainable in a Civil Court and such a dispute could only be adjudicated by arbitration in the manner provided in section 7-B. The dispute in the present case is of a similar nature being a claim for recovery of damages on the basis of unlawful disconnection of the telephone and illegal withholding of reconnection. Such a dispute is clearly covered by section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. With respect, I am in agreement with the view taken in the above Orissa case and find no reason to differ from it. It must, therefore, be held that the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was not cognizable by a Civil Court being a dispute falling within the ambit of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 requiring it to be decided by arbitration in the manner provided therein. AIR 1977 Orissa 48 relied on. Appeal dismissed.