O R D E R

Challenging the Award passed by the Arbitrator/2nd Respondent the writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2014 and to direct the 1st Respondent to restore the connection and also to direct the 1st Respondent to pay compensation for damages.

2. The Writ Petitioner is the unit of M/s. Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1996 and engaged in rendering BPO services in India for overseas clients and employed 76 number of people and was operating from their Ranipet Unit at 25-B, Lapiz Digital Service, SIPCOT, Ranipet-632403. The Petitioner has obtained PRI Connection bearing No.04172-243000 from the First Respondent on payment of Rs.16,545/- on 24.09.2011 without any ISD facility and the connection was meant mainly for inbound calls that can be received in the above Number and no ISD calls can be made from the facility. He has received bill for every month from 06.10.2011 till 20.03.2012 which were not disputed. However, they received a bill for a sum of Rs.8,835.88 for the bill dated 20.04.2012 and a bill for Rs.14,02.785.24 for the bill dated 20.05.2012. The above said number was disconnected abruptly. On enquiry, the Petitioner came to know that 8200 ISD calls were metered to 56 countries in three days between 5th and 7th of May 2012. The Petitioner called for an investigation and a Special Team of the 1st Respondent came to the Petitioner's premises and inspected the premises. Thereafter, Arbitrator was appointed.

3. It is the main contention of the Petitioner before the Arbitrator that they never had ISD facility. Further, the result of investigation has not been informed to the Petitioner besides they claimed compensation.

4. The 1st Respondent contended before the Arbitrator, that the bill dated 20.05.2012 for the period from 16.04.2017 to 15.05.2012 shows the ISD calls made to different countries for which the total usage charges including other charges as detailed in the bill is Rs.14,02,785.24 and the Bill dated 20.04.2012 for the period from 16.03.2012 to 15.04.2012 for Rs.8,835.88. According to the 1st Respondent the ISD calls were made from the claimant company ISDN PRI number. All the calls were made from any ISDN PRI telephone is connected to the electronic telephone exchange equipments and no one can tamper or alter the system once connected to claimant's equipments. Comparing with the 1st Respondent's exchange, the expert technical committee based on the complaint by the claimant, found there was no mistake in the respondent equipment and all the ISD calls are made only from the claimants company from their channels.

5. It is the contention of the 1st Respondent that these facts are known to the Petitioner. The documents filed by the Petitioner itself contained all these details. Learned Arbitrator considered the entire issue including cross examination of the claimant and evidence of witnesses and found that the bill raised by the BSNL is correct and the claimant is liable to pay the amount. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that there is no proper opportunity given to the writ petitioner to make cross examination and no technical report Was given to them. Without opportunity being granted, learned Arbitrator has concluded the issue merely based on the oral evidence of R.W.1. The 1st Respondent given an ISD facility by default even without any request from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should not be penalised for that and the the Arbitrator also failed to notice that the calls made on 21.03.2012 was a local call and not an ISD, which was demonstrated by cross examination. Therefore, the Arbitrator's finding that the Petitioner company made the ISD calls without any evidence is not acceptable. When the facility cannot be misused anybody including the petitioner and the service provider at Delhi, the liability cannot be fastened on the Petitioner. Hence, it is hi