State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Manager, Bsnl And Others vs Meenakshi Annie And Others on 30 November, 2009
F BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I COMMON ORDER IN [ F.A. NOs.460/04, 601/05, 100/06, 126/06, 141/06, 143/06, 200/06, 307/06, 361/06, 370/06, 421/06, 456/06, 460/06, 470/06, 481/06, 490/06, 491/06, 504/06, 541/06, 545/06, 553/06, 561/06, 566/06, 569/06, 628/06, 630/06, 661/06, 679/06, 680/06, 54/07, 342/07, 480/07, 41/08, 44/08, 185/08, 508/08, 710/08, 833/08, 882/08, 33/09, 49/09, 184/09, 201/09, 217/09, 335/09, 3/06, 25/06, 51/06, 142/06, 208/06, 235/06, 250/06, 259/06, 270/06, 292/06, 578/06, 177/07, 81/08, 28/09 AND 363/09 ] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 F.A.NO.460/2004 (Against order in C.C.NO.229/2002 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) 1.
The General Manager W-122, Anna Nagar Chennai Telephones, Chennai
2. Deputy Manager Ambattur Exchange Chennai Telephones Chennai
3. Divisional Engineer M/s.M.Govindaraj Purasaiwakkam Exchange Counsels for Chennai Telephones, Chennai Appellants/Opposite parties Vs Meenakshi Annie Advocte B, Ground Floor Mr. S. Ramdoss Silver Palms Apartments Counsel for Mogappair, Chennai 50 Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.4.2004 in C.C.No.229/2002.
F.A.NO.601/2005(Against order in O.P..NO.135/2002 on the file of the DCDRF, Cuddalore)
1. M.C. Krishnamurthy Maruthadu & Post Pin 607 109
2. Tamilnadu Rural Urban Consumer Protection Sangam :: Mrs. S. Devika Cuddalore 607 001 Counsel for Rep. by its General Secretary R.Appaji ::
Appellants/Complainants Vs
1. The Commercial Officer ::
BSNL, Cuddalore
2. The Junior Telegraph Office (JTO) Mr. T. Ravikumar, Counsel for BSNL, Nellikuppam Respondent/ Opposite parties The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed in part the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.9.2005 in C.C.No.135/2002.F.A.NO.100/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.299 /2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)
1. M/s.Reliance Web World, Rep.
By its Manager, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002.
2. M/s. Reliance India Mobile, :: M/s.Sivakumar and Suresh Rep.By its General Manager, ::Appellants / Opposite Parties 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
Vs Mr.M.Jayabalan, S/o.
Mr.Manivel, D.No. 142, N.S.K.Street, Selvapuram(West), ::
Respondent/Complainant.
Komarapalayam Post, (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.06.2005 in C.O.P.No.299/2003.F.A.NO.126/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.89 /2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Tirunelveli) The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ::
Appellant / Opposite Party Tirunelveli 627 003. ::
M/s.M.Govindarraj Vs S.Poosairaj, S/o.K.Sankaranarayanan, 142, Bharathiar Street, ::
Respondent/Complainant Tirunelveli Town. :: M/s. V.Babu Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.12.2005 in C.O.P.No.89/2004.F.A.NO.141/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.29 /2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Karur)
1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Trichy Telcom District, Trichy.
2. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sub-Divisional Office, ::
Appellant / Opposite Parties Karur.
:: M/s. Govindarraj Vs S.Meenambal, W/o.
Santhanam, Pallapalayam Post, ::
Respondent / complainant Karur Taluk & District. (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.12.2005 in C.O.P.No.29/2004.F.A.NO.143/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.177/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)
1. The General Manager, Mobile BSNL, Trichy.
2. The District Manager, BSNL, :: Appellants/Respondents Madurai Telephone. :: M/s. K.R.Ramesh Kumar Advocate Vs P.Thyagarajan, S/o.Ponnuswamy, 35, Sambandamoorthy Street, :: Respondent/Complainant West Masi Street, Madurai. :: Mr.S.Raghu, Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service.
The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.06.2005 C.O.P.No.177/2004.
F.A.NO.200/2006(Against order in C.O.P.NO.76/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)
1. Bharti Telenet Ltd., 96-A, Durairaj Towers, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 37.
2. Bharti Telenet Ltd., ( Tamilnadu Circle) Bharti Towers, No.101, Santhome High Road, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Chennai 600 028.
:: M/s. V.V.Giridhar Advocate Vs C.D. Francis Son of C.J.Devassy Door No.1514, Trichy Road, ::
Respondent/Complainant Coimbatore 18. Mr.C.D.Johnson, Adv.
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.08.2005 C.O.P.No.76/2005.F.A.NO.307/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.13/2000 on the file of the DCDRF,Thiruvannamalai)
1. The General Manager Telecommunication (TRA Unit) Vellore.
2. The Senior Accounts Officer Office of the General Manager Telephone, Tiruvannamalai Unit :: Appellant/Opposite parties Vellore- 632 001 Mr.M.Govindaraj, Adv.
Vs R. Ravi S/o.
Raman Proprietor Balaji Bhavan, Bustand Complex ::
Respondent/ Complainant Vandavasi (Absent) The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Complainant seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.03.12.2004 in C.C.No.13/2000.F.A.NO.361/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.314/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rep.
by its Principal General Manager Commercial Office, Telecom ::
Appellant/Opposite party Alagesan Road, Saibaba Colony Mr.A.Radhakrishnan, Adv.
Coimbatore District 641 011 Vs Vinod Narasiman S/o, S.N. Varadharajan 239, Alagesan Road ::
Respondent/ Complainant Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore. M/s.Sarvabhuman Association.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.3.2006 in C.C.No.314/2006.F.A.NO.370/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.286/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)
1. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager Reliance House 3rd Floor No.6, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 6
2. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rep. by its Director Thane Belapur Road ::
Appellant/Opposite parties Kopar Khairane, Mr.S.Venkatesan, Advocate Navi Mumbai 400 709 Vs M.C. Anusuya W/o.
Chinram 51/2, Soundarya Colony ::
Respondent/ Complainant Anna Nagar (W) Extension Mr.R.Chandrasudan, Adv.
Chennai 101 The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.31.3.2006 in C.C.No.286/2005 F.A.NO.421/2006 (Against order in C.C.NO.365/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)
1. The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bibikulam Madurai 625 002
2. The Divisional Engineer (Groups) BSNL Sub Divisional Office :: Appellant/Opposite parties Sholavandan, Madurai District Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Vs S. Arokiasamy S/o.
Samuvel Rayapuram East Street ::
Respondent/ Complainant Thiruvengadam P.O., (Absent) Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.4.2006 in C.C.No.365/2004.F.A.NO.456/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.71/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Tuticorin) The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ::
Appellant/Opposite party Thoothukudi 3 Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar, Adv.
Vs L. Rajaguru S/o.
Lakshmanan 4/36/2, Athiparasakthi Nagar ::
Respondent/ Complainant Thoothukudi 2 Mr.V.Manisekaran, Adv.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.5.1.2006 in C.C.No.71/2004.F.A.NO.460/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.450/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)
1. The Junior Engineer, BSNL of India Ltd., Y. Othakkadai, Madurai
2. The Chief Commercial Manager, Telecom, BSNL of India Ltd., Madurai 625 002
3. The General Manager, :: Appellant/Opposite parties Telecom, BSNL of India Ltd., Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar, Adv.
Madurai 625 002 Vs V. Ramasamy Door No.2/916, Ruthrran Illam Miras nagar, Y. Othakadai ::
Respondent/ Complainant Madurai 625 107 (Absent) The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.05.05.2006 in C.C.No.450/2003.F.A.NO.470/2006
(Against order in C.C.NO.141/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)
1. The Chief General Manager BSNL Chennai Telephones 52, EVK Sampath Road Chennai 600 007
2. The Deputy General Manager BSNL Chennai Telephones ::
Appellants/Opposite parties R.K. Mutt Road, Chennai 600 028 Mr.T.Ravikumar, Adv.
Vs P. Ekambaram S/o.
Ponnan Poonga Nagar ::
Respondent/ Complainant Thiruvallur, Chennai 602 001.
M/s.Elveera Ravindaran, Adv.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.3.2006 in C.C.No.141/2005 F.A.NO.481/2006 (Against order in C.C.NO.43 /2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Thirunelveli)
1. The General Manager (Telecom), M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tirunelveli 627 003.
2. Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue), O/o The General Manager (Telecom), M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ::
Appellants/Opposite Parties Tirunelveli 627 003. ::
M/s.Govindarraj Advocate Vs D.Samuel, Managing Director, M/s.
Samchand Chit Funds Pvt Ltd., 9c, Thilak Nagar, :: Respondent / complainant Tirunelveli 627 001. :: M/s.A.Pitchaikani Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service.
The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.31.01.2005 in C.O.P.No.29/2006.
F.A.NO.490/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.476/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)
1. The General Manager, BSNL, Madurai Telecom, Bibikulam, Madurai.
2. The Commercial Officer-III, BSNL, Office of the General Manager, Telecom, Madurai.
3. The Accounts Officer, BSNL, Office of the General Manager, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Telecom, Madurai. ::
M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar, Vs K.Jegadeesan, S/o.
Kumarasamy Nadar, Plot No.4, Teppakulam New Colony, :: Respondent / complainant Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.06.2006 in C.O.P.No.476/2006.F.A.NO.491/2006
(Against order inC.C.NO.55/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Thro its General Manager, (Telecom), V.P.Ratnasamy Nadar Road, :: Appellant/Opposite Party Madurai 625 002. :: M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Vs B.Tamilselvi, W/o.Mr.D.Balakrishnan, No. 72-A, West Ponnagaram 7th Street, ::
Respondent/Complainant Madurai 625 018. (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.19.06.2006 in C.O.P.No.55/2006 F.A.NO.504/2006 (Against order in O.P.NO.110/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai South)
1.
Reliance India Mobile, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., (Reliance Industries Ltd.,) Rep.by its Chairman Managing Director, Makers Chambers IV, 222,Nariman Point, Mumbai 02.
2. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Reliance House, No.6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Chennai 600 006.
::M/s.S.Venkatesan Advocates Vs Mr.S.Srinivasan, No.2, High Court Colony (South) 1st Cross Street, Villivakkam, :: Respondent/Complainant Chennai
49. (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.06.2006 O.P.No.110/2005 F.A.NO.541/2006 (Against order inC.O.P.NO.125/ 1999 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) The General Manager, Telecom, ::
Appellant / Opposite Party Madurai. :: M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Vs S. Ramadoss, L.R. of the Respondent(Deceased) S/o.
Alagarsamy Chettiar, No.81, South Perumal Maistry Street, :: Respondent / complainant Madurai 625 001.
(Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.02.2004 O.P.No.125/1999.F.A.NO.545/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.34 /2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Tirunelveli
-627 003, ::
Appellant / Opposite Party Rep.by its General Manager.
::M/s.M.Govindarraj Advocate Vs.
1. S.Jafer Ali, Advocate and Notary Public, No.24, Bell Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
2. TamilNadu People d Consumer Federation, (Regd.No.76/93), ::Respondent / complainant Tirunelveli 627 003 Mr.S.Ansari, Adv. for R1 & R2.
The respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.19.07.2006 C.C.No.34/2005.
F.A.NO.553/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.110/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai South) S.Srinivasan, 2, High Court Colony South, :: Appellant / complainant First Cross Street, M/s. S.Vaidyanathan Advocate Villivakkam, Chennai-49 Vs.
1. Reliance India Mobile, Reliance Industries Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managaing Director, Makers Chambers IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21.
2. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Reliance House, 6, Haddows Road, ::
Respondents/Opposite Parties Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. Mr.S.Venkatesan, Adv.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.06.2006 C.C.No.110/2005.F.A.NO.561/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.7/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Tirunelveli)
1. The Accounts Officer (Cash), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, O/o, The General Manager, Tirunelveli-627 003.
2. The General Manager (Telecom), M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,.
Tirunelveli-627
003.
3. The Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., ::
Appellants/Opposite Parties Chennai. ::
M/s. M.Govindarraj Advocate Vs S.Kanagasabapathi, 13,S.B.Colony, Perumalpuram Post, ::
Respondent/Complainant Tirunelveli 627 007. ::
M/s.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.02.2006 C.O.P.No.7/2004.F.A.NO.566/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.67/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) The General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, No.2, Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, ::
Appellant/Opposite Party Madurai 2 ::
M/s. K.R.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Vs. S.Kansha, S/o.(Late) Syed Meera, N0.2, Park North Street, Singarayar Colony, ::
Respondent/Complianant Madurai. 625 002. :: M/s. A.Haja Mohideen Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.01.2006 C.C.No.67/2005.F.A.NO.569/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.10/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Perambalur)
1. The Accounts Officer, BSNL, Trichy Telecom District, Trichy.
2. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, BSNL :: Appelllants/Opposite Parties Perambalur. :: M/s.M.Govindarraj Advocate Vs Rani, W/o.
Muthukannu, Mashavarayanallur Village, Ayakkudi Post, Eshumoor Majara, ::
Respondent/Complainant Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. :: M/s.A.Narayanan Advocate The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.12.2005 C.O.P.No.10/2005.F.A.NO.628/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.7/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Perambalur)
1. The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District, Tiruchirappalli 1
2. The Divisional Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Perambalur.
3. The Junior Engineer, Telephone Exchange, ::
Appellants/Opposite Parties Perambalur.
::M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Vs S.Subbiah, 17, Sannathi Street, Perambalur Post and Taluk, ::
Respondent/Complainant Perambalur District.
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.04.2006 C.O.P.No.7/2005.F.A.NO.630/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.62/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Dindigul)
1. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Madurai 625 002.
2. Junior Telecom Officer (WLL) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telegram Office, Salai Road, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Dindigul ::
M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Advocate Vs Sri.M.P.Raja Advocate 10B New Agraharam Palani Road, :: Respondent/Complainant Dindigul. (Absent).
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.09.2006 C.O.P.No.62/2005.F.A.NO.661/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.68/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Nagapattinam)
1. The Divisional Manager/ General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Thanjavur.
2. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vedaranyam.
3. The Junior Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ::
Appellants / Opposite Parties Vedaranyam. ::
M/s.M.Govindarraj Advocate Vs M.S.Mohamed Billal, S/o.Syed Mohamed, Thopputhural, ::
Respondent/ complainant Vedaranyam Taluk. (Absent) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.5.10.2006 C.O.P.No.68/2004.F.A.NO.679/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.77/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Chengalpattu)
1. The Manager, Telephone Exchange, Gunder Lake, Chengalpattu.
2. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Old Telephone Exchange :: Appellant/Opposite Party Chengalpattu. ::
M/s.D.Sarvanan Advocate Vs S.Karuppasamy, S/o.Surulisamy, No.325/4, Ambadkar Street, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Thimmavaram, Chengalpattu, ::
Respondent/Complainant Kanchipuram District.
(In person) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.09.2006 C.O.P.No.77/2004.F.A.NO.680/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.229/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai South) The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chengalpattu SSA, ::
Appellant/Opposite Party Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. :: M/s.D.Saravanan Advocate Vs K.Baskaran, No.8/12th T.H. Road, Thiruvottiyur, :: Respondent/Complainant Chennai-600
019. Mr.N.S.Manoharan, Advocate.
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.08.2006 O.P.No.229/2004.
F.A.NO.54/2007(Against order in O.P.NO.479/2002 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai South)
1. The Deputy General Manager (West), BSNL, Chennai Telephones, No.10, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
2. The Commercial Officer (West), BSNL, Chennai-24.
3. The Accounts Officer (West), :: Appellants/Opposite Parties BSNL, Chennai-24.
:: M/s.T.Ravi Kumar Advocate Vs PVN Swamy, No.24/22, Giri Street, West Mambalam, ::
Respondents/Complainant Chenai 600 033. (In Person) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.18.07.2006 O.P.No.479/2002.F.A.NO.342 / 2007
(Against order in O.P.NO.6/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam)
1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, CRDA Telecom District, Kumbakonam.
2. The Junior Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telephones, :: Appellants / Opposite Parties Nagapattinam 611 001. ::
M/s. M.Govindaraj, Advocate.
Vs. N.Senthilkumar, S/o.
Natarajan, 39, I Floor, Ramanayakkan Tank Street, Velipalayam, :: Respondent / Complainant.
Nagapattinam. ::
M/s.Gajendran, Advocates.
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.4.2007 in C.C.No.6/2006.F.A.NO.480/ 2007
(Against order in O.P.NO.30/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam) Accounts Officer, O/o General Manager, BSNL, TRA Unit, ::
Appellant / Opposite Party Thanjavur 613 001 :: M/s.T. Ravi Kumar Vs. K.Kuppusamy S/o Krishnan No.6/32, Therkkukadu, Kuruvakulam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. :: Respondent / Complainant The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.4.2007 in C.C.No.30/2006.F.A.NO.41/ 2008
(Against order in O.P.NO.637/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai (South))
1. Divisional Engineer (Internal) O/o The Divisional Engineer, Chennai Telephones, 99 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
2. The Accounts Officer, AOTRW (W) Chennai Telephones, 45 Taylors Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.
3. The Accounts Officer, AOTRWE (II) Chennai Telephones, 36 Station Border Road, ::Appellant / Opposite Parties Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ::M/s. A.S.Chakravarthi Vs M.Duraisamy, 27, 2nd Main Road, V.S.Nagar, Valasaravakkam, ::
Respondent/Complainant Chennai 600 087. (In person) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service.
The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.7.11.2007 in O.P.No.637/2004.
F.A.NO.44/ 2008(Against order in C.C.NO.48/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Cuddalore)
1. The sub-Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Saneevinaidu Street, Cuddalore-607 001.
2. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ::
Appellants / Opposite Parties Cuddalore-607
001. ::
M/s.M.Govindaraj Vs
1. Syed Rahim, S/o.
Syed Kasim, :: In Person 59/1, Sankaranaidu Street, Cuddalore.
2. Liyakat Alikhan, 59, Sankaranaidu Street, Cuddalore-607
002. ::
Respondents/Complainants
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Tiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore-607
002.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, ::
Respondents/Respondents 1-2 Cuddalore-1. ::
M/s.N.Saravanan.
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.1.8.2007 in C.C.No.48/2005.F.A.NO.185/ 2008
(Against order in C.C.NO.345/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, No.2 V.P.Rathinsamy Nadar Road, :: Appellant/Opposite Party Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. :: M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Vs S.A.Ajmal Khan, S/o.
Sulthan Alaudeen 24 Thomas street, Narimedu, Madurai 625 002 ::
Respondent/Complainant The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2007 in C.C.No.345/2004.F.A.NO.508/2008
(Against order in C.C.NO.116/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai North)
1. The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai Telephones, 78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai-600
010.
2. The Deputy General Manager (South West) BSNL, Chennai Telephones, Panagal Buildings, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Chennai-600 015.
::M/s.N.Biswanath Vs R.Gnanadas, 175, Anna Street, Thirumangalam, Chennai-600
040. :: Respondent/Complainant The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.05.2008 in C.C.No.116/2005.
F.A.NO.710/2008(Against order in C.C.NO.29/2006 on the file of the DCDRF,Nagapattinam) The Accounts Manager, General Manager, BSNL, :: Appellant/Opposite Party Kumbakonam. :: M/s.K.Anbarasan Vs
1. Ganesan, S/o.Muthuraj, No.5, Main Road, Nambiyar Nagar, ::
Respondent/Complainant Velipalayam, Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi, Advocate.
Nagapattinam
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BSNL, Telephone Department, (given up) Nagapattinam. :: Respondent/2nd Opposite Party The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.12.2007 in C.C.No.29/2007.
F.A.NO.833/2008(Against order in C.C.NO.102/2007 on the file of the DCDRF,Theni)
1. Bharat Airtel Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, 5/12,Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi.
2. Bharat Airtel Ltd., Rep.
by its officer in charge, Oceanic Towers, 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
3. Bharati Airtel Ltd., Bharti Centre, Rep.
by its officer in charge, 1168, Avinashi Road, P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore.
4. Bharati Airtel Ltd., Rep.by its Officer in charge, ::M/s. M.B.Gopalan City Cellular, Karthick Complex, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Bus Stand, Batalagundu.
Vs Dr.Sudhakar Rao, S/o.
Sripada Rao, :: Respondent/Complainant 82/2, South Agraharam, M/s.S.Natarajan, Advocate.
Periakulam-625
601. The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.03.2008 in C.C.No.102/2007.
F.A.NO.882/2008(Against order in C.C.NO.5/2007 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai North) R.Sachidanandam, 40/12, Everest Colony, Pari Salai, Mogappair East, Chennai 600 037.
:: Appellant/Complainant Vs
1. The Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 73, Purasavakkam High Road, Chennai 600 010.
2. The Chief Superintedent, :: Respondent/Opposite Parties Central Telegraph Office, Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate.
BSNL, Chennai Telephone, Chennai 600 001.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.08.2008 in C.C.No.5/2007.
F.A.NO.33/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.227/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)
1. The General Manager Flower Bazar Telephone Exchange Chennai 1
2. The Commercial Officer (SW) Chennai Telephones, Panagal Buildings No.1, Jeenis Road, 3rd Floor Chennai 600 015
3. Sub Divisional Engineer Velachery External M/s. N. Biswanath No.24, Narasingapuram Counsel for 2nd Lane, Guindy, Chennai 32 ::
Appellants/Opposite parties Vs Mrs.Sarojini C.P Flat No.10, Farah Villah Plot No.3, 1st Street Janakapuri, Velachery Chennai 42 Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service.
The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.8.2008 in C.C.No.227/2006.
F.A.NO.49/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.31/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur)
1. Assistant Engineer A.E (incharge) Telephone Office, Veppanthattai Circle Perambalur District
2. Engineer D.E Telephone Office Perambalur 621 212
3. Trichy District Accounts Officer cum General Manager ::Mr. M. Govindarraj Telephone Office 620 001 Counsel for Tiruchirapalli Appellants/Opposite parties Vs N. Srinivasan 616 Mettu Street Perambalur. ::Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.9.2008 in C.C.No.31/2006.
F.A.NO.184/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.371/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) The Manager Vodafone Mobile BPL Mobile Gallery M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh Avinashi Road Counsels for Coimbatore :: Appellant/1st Opposite party Vs
1. Raja Paranthaman S/o. Mohana Rangan 140, Kaleeswara Nagar, Kattoor Ramnagar Post :: 1st Respondent/ Complainant Coimbatore 641 009 (In Person)
2. The Manager Citi Bank, N.A. Cards No.2, Club House Road ::2nd Respondent / 2nd Opposite party Mount Road, Chennai 2.
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.4.2006 in C.C.No.371/2008.
F.A.NO.201/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.202/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rep.
by its AGM and DGM, 52, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, ::
Appellant/Opposite party Chennai 600 007. Mr.D.Saravanan, Advocate.
Vs Ranidan Nahar, 62, EVK Sampath Salai, 241, Vaibhav Apts., Vepery, ::Respondent/ Complainant Chennai 600 007. Mrs.Kushboo Nahar, Advocate.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.12.2008 in C.C.No.202/2007.
F.A.NO.217/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.85/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Erode)
1. Tata Teleservices Ltd., 10th Floor Tower-I, Jewan Bharathi, 121, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001.
2. Tata Teleservices Ltd., Paras Towers, 2, 3 & 4, Thiru-vi-Ka Salai, Chennai 600 014.
3. Tata Teleservices Limited, Park Approach Road, :: Appellants/Opposite Parties Near Oxford Hote, M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh, Erode. Advocates.
Vs I. Faizuddin, Advocate & Notary, 210, 3rd Cross KAS Nagar, ::Respondent/ Complainant Karungapalayam, Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate.
Erode 638 003.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.05.2009 in C.C.No.85/2007.
F.A.NO.335/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.634/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)) Bharat Airtel Ltd., Rep.
by its Manager (Customer Care), Bharti Towers, 101, Santhome High Road, ::
Appellant/Opposite party Santhome, Mr.V.V.Giridhar, Advocate.
Chennai 600 028.
Vs N. Mohanakrishnan, Radha Mohan, Flat No.6, Ragam, T.66, 1st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. :: Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/Opposite party seeking certain relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.05.2009 in C.C.No.634/2005.
F.A.NO.3/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.184/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) M.Krishna, Pushpak, Malligai Street, Bank Employees Colony, :: Appellant/Complainant Madurai 625 014.
::M/s.Sampathkumar&Associates Vs
1. The General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Madurai 2.
2. The Accounts Officer, (Telephone Revenue), Office of the General, :: Respondents/Opposite Parties Manager, BSNL, Madurai 2 Mr.M.Govindaraj, Advocate.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.12.2003 in O.P.No.184/2003.
F.A.NO.25/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.189/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) M.Krishna, Pushpak, Malligai Street, Bank Employees Colony, :: Appellant/Complainant.
Madurai 625 014. ::
M/s.SampathKumar & Associates Vs BSNL.
Represented by its General Manager, Madurai :: Respondent/Opposite Party Telecom District, Mr.M.Govindaraj, Advocate.
Madurai.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.7.2005 in O.P.No.189/2003.F.A.NO.51/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.82/2003 on the file of the DCDRF,Thoothukudi) S.Kirubakaran Manual 31, Nadar Street, ::
Appellant / complainant Tuticorin 628 001.
:: M/s.S.Subbiah Vs General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, :: Respondent/Opposite Party Tuticorin .
:: M/s. Ramesh Kumar The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.11.2005 in C.O.P.No.82/2003.
F.A.NO.142/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.423/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai North) M.Meenakshi, W/o.S.Munusamy, Old.No.19, New No.9, Sippoy Lane, Karayanchavady, :: Appellant/Complainant Poonamallee, Chennai-56 ::
M/s.M.Sivaraman Advocate Vs
1. The Deputy General Manager (N.P), BSNL, Chennai Telephones, Door No.6, Anna Nagar (East), Chennai 102.
2. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (Exit), :: Respondents/Opposite Parties BSNL,Chennai Telephones, Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate.
Poonamallee, Chennai-56.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.06.2005 O.P.No.423/2003.
F.A.NO.208/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.70/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai North) G.R.Venkataraman, 34,Rangish Street, Choolai, :: Appellant/Complainant Chennai 600 112.
:: M/s.K.S.Ganesh Babu Advocate Vs M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Airtel Magic, 22/1, Paramount Plaza, M.G.Road, :: Respondent/Opposite Party Chennai 600 034.
:: M/s.Iyer & Thomas The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2005 O.P.No.70/2004.
F.A.NO.235/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.91/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) K.Subbiah rep.by his power agent, Chinnathambi, A.Mukkulam Post, Thiruppuvanam via ::
Appellant/Complainant Virudhunagar District. ::
M/s.S.Chandrasekaran Advocate Vs
1. The Manager, BPL Cellular Ltd., A & B 1 A.R.Plaza, Room No.16,17 North Veli Street, Madurai-1.
2. The Manager, :: Respondents/Opposite Parties BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., (Absent) Office 1045, 1046 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 611 018.
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.16.03.2004 O.P.No.91/2003.
F.A.NO.250/2006(Against order in C.O.P.NO.26/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Tiruvallur) V.Nagaraj, S/o.Late.Venkatraju, No.25, Poonjolai Street, Poonga Nagar, ::
Appellant/Complainant Tiruvallur Town and T.K. ::
M/s.V.Murali Advocate Vs
1. The Divisional Engineer, Telecom Maintenance, BSNL, Tiruvallur.
2. The Accounts Officer, O/o.
General Manager, Chengalpattu SSA, No.29, Eldams Road, Chennai
-18.
3. The General Manager, Chengalpattu SSA, No.29, Eldamas , ::
Respondents/Opposite Parties Chennai
18.
(Absent).
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.02.2006 C.O.P.No.76/2005.
F.A.NO.259/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.220/2002 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai South) B.Srinivasulu, W8VSI Estate, Thiruvanmiyur, ::
Appellant/Complainant Chennai 600 041. :: (Party in Person) Vs Commercial Officer, Chennai Telephones, Nandhnam, ::
Respondent/Opposite Party Chennai 600 035.
:: M/s.T.Ravikumar The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.02.2006 O.P.No.220/2002.
F.A.NO.270/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.3/2003 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai South) P.Vijaya Kumar Reddy, No.5 Subba Rao Avenue, Nungambakkam, ::
Appellant/Complianant Chennai 600 006.
:: M/s.Aravind /Subramaniam Vs
1. The General Manager, BSNL Chennai Telephones, No.78, Purasawakkam High Road, Chennai 600 010.
2. The Divisional Engineer, BSNL Chennai Telephones, Anna Road External 1, No.10, Dams Road, Chennai 600 002.
3. The Accounts Officer TR-3,(Central) No.146 Greams Road, :: Respondents/Opposite Parties Chennai 600 006.
:: M/s.T.Ravi Kumar Advocate The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.03.2006 O.P.No.3/2003.
F.A.NO.292/2006(Against order in O.P.NO.18/2003 on the file of the DCDRF,Kanyakumari at Nagercoil) Mrs.Johnsy Gnanam W/o.
R.Ravindran No.20/6-18-1 Paul Street, Neyyoor & Post, :: Appellant/Complainant Kanyakumari District. ::
M/s.R.Ramanlaal Advocate Vs
1. The Junior Engineer, Neyyoor BSNL Exchange Neyyoor Post, Kanniyakumari District.
2. The Junior Engineer, BSNL, Colachel Exchange, Colachel Post, Kanniyakumari District.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Phones, (Groups) BSNL, Colachel, Colachel Post, Kanniyakumari District.
4. The General Manager, BSNL, Court Road, :: Respondents/Opposite Parties Nagercoil. ::
M/s.K.R.Ramesh Kumar Advocate The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.08.2003 O.P.No.18/2003.F.A.NO.578/2006
(Against order in C.O.P.NO.60/2004 on the file of the DCDRF,Dindigul) G.Chandran, 23,V.M.Lane, :: Complainant/Appellant Dindigul 5 :: M/s.V.Annalakshmi Advocate Vs
1. Sub Divisional Officer, Telephones, Dindigul.
2. General Manager, :: Opposite Parties/Respondents BSNL, Madurai. ::
M/s.M.Govindarraj Advocate The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.05.2006 C.O.P.No.60/2004.F.A.No.177/2007
(Against order in O.P.No. 86/1998 on the file of the DCDRF,Coimbatore) R.Chelaiah, S/o.Ramasamy, General Secretary, National Plantation, ::
Appellant/ Complainant.
Workers Union,Valparai. M/s.
A.Palaniappan, Counsel for appellant Vs. The General Manager, Telecommunications, :: Respondent/ Opposite Parties Coimbatore.
M/s.A.S.Chakarvarthi, Counsel for Respondent The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.03.2006 in C.C.No.86/1998.F.A.NO.81/ 2008
(Against order in C.C.NO.12/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri) K.Shanmugam, S/o.
Kaliappan, Salem Main Road, Kaveripattinam, :: Complainant/Appellant.
Krishnagiri Taluk.
:: M/s.V.Raghavachari Vs
1. The General Manager, Telecom District, Dharmapuri.
2. The Account Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ::Opposite Parties/Respondent Dharmapuri.
:: M/s. T.Ravi Kumar The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents/opposite parties, seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2007 in C.C.No.12/2006.
F.A.NO.28/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.163/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) C. Manohar S-2, A Block, Fortune Park No.45, North Park Street (In person) Ambattur, Chennai 600 053 Appellant/Complainant Vs
1. Accounts Officer BSNL W-122, III Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040
2. Divisional Engineer BSNL Ambattur Exchange Chennai Respondent/ Opposite parties The Appellant as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/Opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.10.2008 in C.C.No.163/2005.
F.A.NO.363/2009(Against order in C.C.NO.55/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) S.Thomas Florence, S/o.
D.Selvaraj, 61, Ramasamy Layout, ::
Appellant/Complainant Aavarampalayam, Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advocate.
Ganapathy, Coimbatore.
Vs The Chief Accounts Officer, O/o.
PGM, BSNL, ::
Respondent/Opp. Party 219, Bharathi Park Road Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar, Adv.
Coimbatore 43.
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/Opposite party seeking certain relief for the deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.08.2008 in C.C.No.55/2008.
M.THANIKACHALAM J.
PRESIDENT
1. This order shall dispose all the above appeals.
2. The complainants in all the above cases, individually, have filed complaints, seeking certain reliefs, as enumerated in the complaints, complaining deficiency of service against the BSNL, RELIANCE, BHARTI TELENET, VODAFONE MOBILE, TATA TELE SERVICES accordingly, on the grounds, either they have collected excess amount or claiming rental rebate or to restore the telephone connection or claiming refund of amount paid or to withdraw the bill, or to restore the mobile connection or to correct the bill for real consumption or to reactivate the mobile connection or to set right the wrong bills or to cancel the telephone bills including claiming compensation attributing deficiency in service as per the averments made in the respective complaints before the respective Fora.
3. The District Fora allowed the complaint to some extent in some cases, giving relief and in some cases, dismissed the complaint also as indicated above.
4. Aggrieved by the directions issued by District Fora, BSNL and other service providers have filed separate appeals, and similarly the complainants whose claim were negatived also, have filed separate appeals.
When these appeals are pending for consideration before this Commission, Honble Supreme Court has rendered a decision in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another, ruling that in view of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, there is an implied bar, to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, herein after called Act, thereby, ousting the jurisdiction of the Act, as far as the service provided by the BSNL, Reliance and other companies. In view of the development in law, though so far we have applied the Consume Protection Act for this kind of service also, a doubt has arisen about the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in determining the dispute arises between the teleservice providers and consumers.
5. In all the cases, the question of law involved is, one and the same, though facts may be different, relief sought may be different. If the law applicable is settled, accepting the ruling of the Apex Court as applicable to all the cases before us, then the cases filed against the Telecommunication service providers have to be dismissed, concluding, there is a bar of jurisdiction. In this view, with the consent of all the parties, the above cases were taken for hearing jointly, and heard in detail, perused the Written Submissions, heard the arguments of the counsels appearing for the parties, in detail.
6. In order to appreciate the applicability of the law as urged before us, we have to see certain provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, Telegraph Act as well as some other related provisions available in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 also, in addition to, what is the ratio laid down in the judgement referred above.
7. A special enactment covering all kinds of common relief, came to be passed by the Parliament in the year 1986, that is called The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the Act, better protection of the interest of the consumers, is provided, providing speedy and simple procedure, establishing District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora, empowering quasi judicial power, wherein, reliefs also could be given as detailed under Section 14 of the Act, in addition to, compensation to the consumers, penalties for non-compliance etc., which would be seen from the statement of object and reason also. The Legislatures in their wisdom, have not barred the jurisdiction of any other Court or they have not excluded specifying the disputes from the purview of the Act, whereas, they said under Section 3 of the Act, that The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus, prima facie, it is seen, a person can claim any relief under this Act, provided, he is a consumer, as defined under the Act, where he proves defects in the goods purchased, or deficiency in service hired or where there was unfair trade practice etc., In this view alone, the dispute relating to telephone and connected services were entertained and decided by the Fora, upto the National Commission level, so far.
8. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another, have ruled, that in view of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, the dispute relating to Telecom service should be decided only by the Arbitrator, appointed by the Central Government and that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rule and therefore, this kind of cases cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora. The relevant observations in the judgement reads In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Thus concluding, the appeal preferred by the BSNL was allowed, setting aside the order of the High Court, as well as, the order of the District Forum in that case. A plain reading of the above judgement, would suggest undoubtedly that when there is a special remedy under the Telegraph Act, the aggrieved party must seek relief only under the authority appointed or nominated under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act and he is barred from approaching the Consumer Fora. The reasons assigned by the Apex Court is It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law, for which, they referred the decision of the Apex Court in The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. The Consumer Protection Council reported in I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC).
9. In some cases, in these appeals, the dispute is regarding, to shifting and in some cases, the dispute is regarding Internet, some cases related to excess billing. A bare reading of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, would indicate that this Section will come into operation, in respect of telegraph line, appliances or apparatus. Therefore, an attempt was made to say on behalf of certain complainants, that the above cases and other cases, except the above three categories, will not come within the ambit of Section 7-B and in this view, the ruling of Honble Supreme Court, may not be applicable. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, considering the definition for telegraph and service, it should be held, that all the cases pertaining to telephone service, certainly would come within the ambit of section 7B, whether Section7-B would be invoked or not.
10. Section 7-B reads Arbitration of disputes.(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall no be questioned in any court.
11. Section 3 of the Telegraph Act defines telegraph means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means. Thus, the expression of telegraph, as defined in the Telegraph Act shall include telephones and all kind of telecommunication services. Either Internet or shifting the telephone or excess bill, are all related to telegraph line or with reference to apparatus etc., The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 says All telephone connections and other similar services provided or authorized by the Department shall, unless governed by a separate contract, be subject to the conditions set forth in these rules. Subscriber is defined as Subscriber means a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by means of an installation under these rules or under an agreement. In all the cases, installation of the telephone apparatus should have been granted/installed under the rules or under the agreement as the case may be and therefore, who compliance any deficiency in service, against telecom authority cannot escape from the clutches of Section 7-B. Thus, settling, all the cases herein come under Section 7-B, it is to be seen further, whether the above said rulings should be followed or is there any possibility of deviating from the said ruling, based upon any other Supreme Court cases.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants, would submit that an Arbitrator appointed under Section 7-B, cannot act as judge, for his own cause and in this view, going before the Arbitrator nominated or appointed under Section 7-B, may not be proper since there is no possibility of getting justice. We are unable to find any logic in the said submission. The Arbitrator contemplated under Section 7-B, is not the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Telephone Department, whereas, the Arbitrator would be appointed by the Central Government either, specially for the determination of the dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. Therefore, if the dispute comes under Section 7-B, the Arbitrator who can be appointed by the Central Government, can exercise the jurisdiction, decide the dispute, and we cannot find fault on the ground that the Arbitrator cannot be a judge, for his own cause.
13. Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, many reliefs are contemplated and they are categorized under Section 14, where compensation also provided, in addition to, other reliefs, further giving power to the District Fora, to grant punitive damages also under certain circumstances. Based upon the above relief available under the Act, a submission was made, on behalf of the complainants that an Arbitrator appointed under Section 7-B cannot grant the reliefs now available under the Act and therefore Consumer Protection Act should prevail. The Central Government while appointing Arbitrator, may empower also, to consider the compensation if any, parties are entitled and therefore, at this stage, we cannot say, since the Act provides compensation and punitive damages, the cases should not be taken under the umbrella of Section 7-B, is unacceptable.
14. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is a pre-independent Act. But the same is amended then and there to suit the advancement of the science in Telecommunication. Originally, the Telecommunication was under
the exclusive control of the Government, and considering the global development business, and the necessity of private parties also participating, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted, in the year 1997, which is post-independent. The Legislature thought that they should not abridge the benefits given to the consumers, under the Consumer Protection Act and in this view, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainants under the Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, protection is given to the individual consumer which says Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to--(B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986);
(C) dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885). The above provisions would indicate that the Consumer Fora jurisdiction is not ousted, whereas, it is protected under the new Act. Here, not only Consumer Protection Act is protected, but Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act also protected. Therefore, taking any clue under TRAI Act, we cannot say, Consumer Protection Act should prevail over Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, that too, in view of the decision referred above, as well the fact, appointment of Arbitrator is also not disturbed.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants, drew our attention to the development of the Consumer Protection Act, and the difficulty it had faced originally, in application to certain field and how it was developed later on, by the pronouncement of the Apex Court etc., In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta case, reported in 1993 (3) CPJ 7 (SC), the scope of the Consumer Protection Act was widened, to protect the consumer rights even against the statutory bodies, holding, the test is not if a person who claim against a statutory body, but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it, is service or even facility. It is also held that the jurisdiction of the Fora cannot be ousted because it related to immovable property. Further, it is held, that the Government or semi government body or a local authority, is as much amenable to the Act, as any other private body rendering similar service, which are not in dispute at present. Now the question is, whether the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is ousted, because of the decision rendered by Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another.
16. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (dead) through Legal Representative and others reported in [2004 CTJ 1 (Supreme Court) (CP)], a dispute had been raised, about the applicability of the Act as well as the bar available under Section 90 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Their Lordships considering benevolent provision of Section 3 of the Act, has ruled that the Consumer Fora can exercise jurisdiction, despite the bar under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, giving liberal interpretation and the reason assigned, appears to be Forum under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering etc., which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act. If we apply the above dictum as such, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants, we could say, despite Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, Forum could exercise the jurisdiction, and that is how the jurisdiction was also exercised so far. Admittedly, in Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society case under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, was not considered and therefore, this cannot be taken as an authority, to decide the case, in dispute in which we are concerned, whether Section 7-B of Telegraph Act can come into operation, barring the Fora, from taking cognizance of the cases, of this nature, though the principle enunciated may be useful, if any rulings is available on the point of jurisdiction.
17. Motors Vehicle Act 1988 provides relief to the victims of the road accident under the special jurisdiction, creating Special Tribunal. When a case came to be filed for compensation, even for road accident, before the Consumer Fora, the matter went up to Supreme Court and in that case [The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. The Consumer Protection Council,] the Apex Court has ruled, since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under 1988 Act, Fora had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, which is referred in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another wherein the rule of special law overrides the general law, was considered.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants, further contended that while deciding the case General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another, the Apex Court has not considered the Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society and other cases, and if it had considered those rulings, in addition to, other provisions of certain laws, the decision would have been different, and in this view, it should be distinguished and should not be made applicable to our cases. We are afraid, to affix seal of approval, for the above argument, since judicial discipline requires, we should follow the ruling of the Apex Court. Further submission of the learned counsel for the complainants, that when some other judgements are available of equal strength, it should be given preference to those judgements which are not considered by the latest judgement, and in support of the same, our attentions were drawn, to some rulings also, which may not be germane, to decide the point in issue, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, that too, considering Article 141 of Constitution of India.
19. Article 141 of Constitution of India mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts, within the territory of India which includes the Tribunals also, including this Commission and there cannot be any dispute and the same is further supported by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others Vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 261, wherein, their Lordships have held Judges are bound by precedents and procedure They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority.
20. In Anil Kumar Neotia and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1353, some dispute had raised about the precedents to be followed on the ground, certain points were not considered or certain decisions were not brought to the Court etc., and rejecting those contentions, their Lordships have ruled held In that view of the matter this question is no longer open for agitation by the petitioners. It is also no longer open to the petitioners, to contend that certain points had not been urged and the effect of the judgement cannot be collaterally challenged, following certain previous case laws also. Further, it is observed at end of Para 18 The binding effect of a decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided. It is also the dictum of the Apex Court that It is apparently too late in the day now to pursue this line of argument, in this connection we may refer to the observations of this Court in Mohd. Ayub Khan Vs. Commr. of Police, Madras (1965) 2 SCR 884: (AIR 1965 SC 1623) according to which even if certain aspects of a question were not brought to the notice of the court it would decline to enter upon re-examination of the question since the decision had been followed in other cases. In view of the above rulings, the contention that in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another case, the other rulings Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society case, were not considered, resulting, this kind of decision is not available to the complainants, whereas, this Commission is bound to follow the decision, since especially Section 7-B was considered, effectively and ruling rendered.
21. The applicability of Section 7-B has not come to the Apex Court, at the first time in 2009, whereas, this point was decided by the Apex Court even in 1996 in M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd., and others reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 119, wherein, it is held It is, thus, settled law that reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest. It is seen that under Section 7-B, the award is conclusive when the citizen complains that he was not correctly put to bill for the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment. The statutory remedy opened to him is one provided under Section 7-B of the Act. By necessary implication, when the arbitrator decides the dispute under Section 7-B, he is enjoined to give reasons in support of his decision since it is final and cannot be questioned in a court of law and this principle is re-established in some other form, while deciding the consumer dispute, which cannot be ignored by giving explanation or attempting to give explanation, by this Commission.
22. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court, the Apex Court once again considered the binding nature of the previous rulings, and under what circumstances, it cannot be ignored at all, observing It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India. It is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out this Court in Anil Kumar Neotia V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. In view of this position, as declared by the Appellant, as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another cannot be eclipsed under the guise, that the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, or other previous judgements of the Apex Court, were not considered by the Supreme Court, whereas, it should be presumed normally, that the Supreme Court should have taken into account the trite laws and has come to a just conclusion. If at all this Commission could use its discretion and interpret Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority which is not available, whereas, the availability is straight to the point, that in view of Section 7-B, the jurisdiction of the Fora is ousted, whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Supreme Court.
23. An elaborate and forcible submission was made, by the learned counsel for the complainants, seeking support from the decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 159Senior Electric Inspector Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Chopra, AIR 1985 SC 1585Distributors ( Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India and others and AIR 1989 SC 1933Union of India and another Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs etc., when two conflicting decisions are available, which ruling should be followed and how preference should be given etc., As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, in fact, no two conflicting rulings are available, and the only ruling available under Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, and its effect over Consumer Protection Act is, the ruling under General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another, and therefore no question arises, which ruling should be followed, for which, no ruling is also necessary, and this submission deserves acceptance, being meritorious. So, no necessity arises, for us to distinguish the ruling, and conclude, Section 7-B is not a bar. In fact, the above ruling is also followed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Reliance Telecom Ltd., Vs. Jay Kumar Jain & Anr (An order passed in Appeal No.669/2008, dated 06.10.2009), and we find no reason, whatsoever not to follow the dictum of the Supreme Court judtement. For the foregoing reasons, the cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties/Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable.
24. In the result, the appeal in F.A. Nos.460/2004, 100/2006, 126/2006, 141/2006, 143/2006, 200/2006, 307/2006, 361/2006, 370/2006, 421/2006, 456/2006, 460/2006, 470/2006, 481/2006, 490/2006, 491/2006, 504/2006, 541/2006, 545/2006, 561/2006, 566/2006, 569/2006, 628/2006, 630/2006, 661/2006, 679/2006, 680/2006, 54/2007, 342/2007, 480/2007, 41/2008, 44/2008, 185/2008, 508/2008, 710/2008, 833/2008, 33/2009, 49/2009, 184/2009, 201/2009, 217/2009 and 335/2009 are all allowed, setting aside the order of the lower forum in the respective C.Cs. of the concerned District Fora, on the grounds, complaints are not maintainable, or jurisdiction is barred.
25. The appeal Nos.601/2005, 553/2006, 3/2006, 25/2006, 51/2006, 142/2006, 208/2006, 235/2006, 250/2006, 259/2006, 270/2006, 292/2006, 578/2006, 177/2007, 81/2008, 882/2008, 28/2009 and 363/2009 are all dismissed, confirming the order passed by the lower forum in the respective C.Cs. of the concerned District Fora, not for the reasons recorded by the lower forum, but on the ground that the cases are not maintainable in the Consumer Fora.
26. In all the cases, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct all the parties to bear their respective cost, throughout.
27. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the respective appellants duly discharged, in the cases where the appeals are allowed.
PON GUNASEKARAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/d/mtj/ BSNL