NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/277/2010

ASHISH MANCHANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA INDICOM BROADBAND & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL

09 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 277 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 16/10/2009 in Appeal No. 357/2009 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. ASHISH MANCHANDAR/o House No. 106, Sector 16PanchkulaHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. TATA INDICOM BROADBAND & ANR.Through its Branch Head, (Presently Known as Tata Communication, SCO=212-214, Second Floor, Sector 34-AChandigarh - 1600222. TATA COMMUNICATION INTEREST SERVICES LIMITED BHAWAN, OLD BUILDINGThrough its Managing Director, Wireless Transmission Station, GK INew Delhi - 110048 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Feb 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.

  Petitioner on payment of Rs.3,641/- got installed an internet connection for purpose of online trading of shares.  Alleging deficiency on part of respondent – company, for connection, getting frequently disconnected and speed of connection being slow, a consumer complaint was filed.  Grievance of petitioner was also that despite complaint being lodged, no one attended to complaint. The claim of petitioner was resisted by respondent – company stating that disruption in service was due to frequent cable cuts by unidentified mischievous elements and that apart renewal of contract itself is evidence of satisfaction of petitioner with service of respondent.  As for grievance of petitioner that the procedure prescribed in Section 65B (4) (a) was not followed in the proceeding was also devoid of substance.  Needless to say that though proceeding before Consumer Fora has trappings of Civil Court, it is neither a revenue  Court nor required to follow all the procedure laid down in Civil Procedure Court. Both the fora below have recorded a concurrent finding dismissing complaint of petitioner.   We find no good reason to interfere with impugned order and revision petition, in the circumstances,  is accordingly  dismissed with no order as to cost.



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER