Kerala

StateCommission

339/2005

The General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramachandran - Opp.Party(s)

K.R.Haridas

20 Aug 2009

ORDER


Cause list
CDRC, Trivandrum
Appeal(A) No. 339/2005

The General Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ramachandran
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL 339/2005

JUDGMENT DATED: 20.8.09

Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.131/04

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                             : MEMBER

 

1. The General Manager, BSNL,

    Telecom, Ernakulam.

2. The Accounts Officer, BSNL,

    Telecom, Thodupuzha.

(By Adv.K.R.Haridas)

     Vs.

Ramachandran,                                            : RESPONDENT

Valooparabil House,

Ayyappankovil.P.O.,

Upputhara, Idukki.

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

 

The appellant is the opposite party in OP.131/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The bill issued by the appellant/BSNL stands set aside.  The appellants have been directed to issue a fresh bill based on average call charges from the past 6 months.

2. It is the case of the complainant that the  average monthly bills used to be around Rs.500/-.  On 8.6.04 he received a bill  for Rs. 4282/- and the meter was complained to the opposite party and detailed bill sought. The same was not provided.

3.  According to the appellants the matter was investigated and there was  no defect in metering system.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P3 and R1 to R5.

5.  It is seen that the disputed bill reflected a sudden spurt.  It is not disputed  that the bills of the complainant of the previous periods were only                                                           around Rs.500/-.  In the circumstances and in the absence of any proper explanation we hold that the impugned bill stands cancelled.  All the same the appellant is directed to issue a fresh bill based on the average reading for the past 6 months and also including 10% of the amount covered by   the disputed bill.   The order of the Forum is modified accordingly.

In the result appeal is allowed in part.

 

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT

 

 

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER

 

 

 

ps

 




......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA