NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4626/2009

VIJAY MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.N.L. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 12 Dec 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4626/2009
(Against the Order dated 13/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1463/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. VIJAY MISHRASudershanpur, 22 GodownJaipur - 302006 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. B.S.N.L. & ANR.Through Accounts Officer Doorsanchar, T.R. Building M.I. RoadJaipur ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

Notice sent by registered post to the petitioner/complainant on 1.1.2010, notice has not been received back unserved. Since 30 days time from date of issue of notice has elapsed, the petitioner will be deemed to have been served with notice for today. 
          The District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner holding that the respondents/opposite parties had rightly added in the disputed bill (Annexure-1) a sum of Rs.1648/- for use of broad band facility by the petitioner and there was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-B.S.N.L. by the order dated 28.11.2008.
 
 
- 2-
 
Appeal against Forum’s order was filed with a delay of 306 days by the petitioner which the State Commission declined to condone and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation vide dated 13.11.2009. Memo of revision would show that the petitioner has mainly raised two grounds to attack the orders passed by fora below –(i) he was not noticed of the date of hearing, & (ii) there was no legal sanctity for creation of camp forum by the Director, Consumer Affairs, Jaipur. Order passed by fora below would show that the petitioner was represented before both of them. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the ground that petitioner was not noticed of the date(s) of hearing. As regard the other ground, to be noted that alongwith Revision Petition the petitioner has filed the copy of notification/order issued by the Consumer Affairs Ministry, State of Rajasthan authorizing/holding of camp forum. That notification/order cannot be assailed in these proceedings. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error   on any of the grounds in the two orders warranting
 
 
 
 
 
- 3-
interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed. 


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER