Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/38

Muhammedkutty Karuvathil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Telephone Mechanic - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/38

Muhammedkutty Karuvathil
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

BSNL Ltd.
Telephone Mechanic
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Muhammedkutty Karuvathil

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. BSNL Ltd. 2. Telephone Mechanic

For the Appellant :
1.

For the Respondent :
1. 2.



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
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
            APPEAL:38/2008
 
                             JUDGMENT DATED.2..8..2008
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              : MEMBER
 
Muhammedkutty Karuvathil,
S/o Saithali Pathiramanna (P.O),
Puzhakkattiri, (Via) Angadippuram.                         : APPELLANT
Malappuram District. PIN – 679 321.
 
          V.
1.Telephone Mechanic,
 Puzhakkattiri Telephone Exchange,
 Puzhakkattiri post, Malappuram Dist.             : RESPONDENTS
 
2.The General Manager,
BSNL, Kottappadi, Malappuram Dist.
 
                                     JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
 
          The case of the appellant is that the order of the Forum below dismissing the complaint with respect to the over charging of Rs.100/- by the opposite party/BSNL is erroneous.
          On a perusal of the order we find that the opposite party has agreed to adjust the amount in future telephone charges. Hence we find that there is no substance in the appeal filed. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
                                       JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
                                       VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
 
VL.



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN