NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2543/2010

PRAVIN KUMAR LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CGM/GM/DGM (F) BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

23 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2543 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 25/05/2010 in Appeal No. 33/2009 of the State Commission Jharkhand)
1. PRAVIN KUMAR LALAII-78(t), DhurwaRanchi - 4Jharkhand ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. CGM/GM/DGM (F) BSNLBSNL, Main Road RanchiRanchiJharkhand ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Sep 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.

Even at the second pass over, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner / complainant.

          Case of the petitioner as set up in the complaint was that during October / November 2002 to March / April 2006, he had made excess payment of Rs.42,341/-. In fact, the amount payable during this period towards telecom charges was Rs.13,200/- calculated @ Rs.600/- per bill. On contest by the respondent / opposite party, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and appeal filed by the petitioner against Forum’s order has been dismissed by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge particularly taking note of the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Another, Vol – III (2009) CPJ 71. In view of this decision, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal against the Forum’s order. There is no illegality or jurisdictional  error  in  the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

 



......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER