SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

LOKESHWAR PRASAD, RUMNITA MITTAL
O. P. GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Deep, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.P.S. Rao, Advocate.

ORDER

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 21.10.2000 passed by the District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 99/2000-entitled Shri O.P. Gupta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

2. The relevant facts of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) averring therein that the appellant had never received bill dated 16.7.1999 in respect of his telephone No. 5681160 and as such a duplicate bill was obtained and the amount of Rs. 1,260/- was duly deposited by the appellant with the concerned collection centre of the respondent on 13.10.1999. However, the subsequent bill dated 16.9.1999 had been duly paid on 12.10.1999. In spite of the fact that no dues were outstanding, the telephone of the appellant was disconnected by respondent on 14.10.1999 on the ground of non-payment of bill dated 16.7.1999. In the circumstances, the appellant had to approach the concerned office of the respondent on 15.10.1999 and on showing the receipt of the payment of bill dated 16.7.1999, an









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top