Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/356/2016

Mangilal s/o Bannechand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s.Chennai metro Polition water and supply and sewerage Board - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kumar chopra, Devkumar

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                                Date of Filing  : 04.10.2016                                                                     

     Date of Order  : 06.12.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

   

C.C. No.356/2016

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

Mangilal,

S/o. Mr. Bannechand,

No.286, Wall Tax Road,

Chennai – 600 003.                                                      .. Complainant.

                                                          ..Versus..

     

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board,

No.1, Pumping Station Road,

Chindadripet,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. The Assistant Engineer,

Area V, No.1, M.C. Road,

Annapoonga,

Chennai – 600 021.                                                 .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. A. Palaniappan &

                                                                  others

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. G. Prakash

                                                           

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund the excess amount of Rs.176/- collected by the 2^nd opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent and deficient service with cost of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

.

Proof Affidavit of the complainant is not filed for a long time to prove the allegations in the complaint.  The complainant and Counsel called absent.  Hence, this complaint is dismissed for default.

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-I I                     PRESIDENT