Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Telecom District Manager vs Mr.Anand Shivram Oak on 28 January, 2010

  
 
 
 
 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION



 

 

 
 

CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
 



     MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
 



 
 



FIRST APPEAL NO.744 OF 1999                         
 



IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.130/1998      Date of order : 28/01/2010
 



DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : RATNAGIRI          
 



 
 



Telecom District Manager
 



Ratnagiri                                            Appellant/org.O.P.
 



V/s.
 



Mr.Anand Shivram Oak
 



c/o.The United Western Bank Ltd.
 



Hanuman Chouk, Latur branch
 



Latur 413 512                           ..Respondent/org.complainant
 



 
 



   Quorum :  Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President   
 


                   
Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member

                   Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar-Honble Member    Present: Mrs.N.V.Masurkar-Advocate for the appellant.

                             : ORAL  ORDER:

Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President   Heard Mrs.N.V.Masurkar-Advocate for the appellant.
This matter is of 1999 and taken for final hearing.  Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent returnable on 14/10/2009 under certificate of posting. 
Complaint no.130/1998 was filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri making grievance that the telephone installed in his premises is not working properly and especially sound of the telephone is not audible on the instrument which is supplied to him. It is admitted position that at the relevant time infrastructure which has been provided was not disturbed.  Complainant whenever attended the said instrument could not hear the call from the other side.  In spite of efforts made by the complainant, earlier service was not restored. It appears that after filing of the complaint, attempts were made by the appellant to restore the service, however even though they put up underground cable, etc. so far as audible voice is concerned, it was not restored. Therefore, Ld.counsels submission that whatever possible was done and therefore, there is no deficiency in service, this submission is not in accordance with the law.  When service is of the audible line is expected and that in spite of underground cable voice is not audible that cannot relieve them from their responsibility as desired under Indian Telegraph Act.  We do not find any reason to disturb the said order.  Appeal is without any merits.  Hence the order:-
                                                          ORDER Appeal stands rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
 



 
 



(Dhanraj Khamatkar)                 (S.R.Khanzode)              (S.B.Mhase)
 



        Member                           Judicial Member                 
President
 



 
 



Ms.