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

A.K.ANNAMALAI
BSNL – Appellant
Versus
PONNUDRAI JOSEPH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M/s. A. Haja Mohideen, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. S. Srinivasan, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

Thiru A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member - The opposite party is the appellant.

2. The complainant availed a broad band service connection with the opposite party for his telephone number 0462-2582058 under the plan BB Home Combo ULF 1350 which has a speed of 2 mbps up to 15 GB. On 23.7.2010, the complainant had paid Rs. 1850 towards broad band connection charges which includes Rs. 1350 towards monthly charges for broad band connection and Rs. 500 towards instrument and on 31.7.2010, the opposite party provided broad band connection to the complainant. Immediately after getting the connection, the complainant tested the same and confirmed that 520 kb speed was provided and not 2 mbps as provided in the plan. Within a few days of getting connection, he made a personal representation to the opposite party's office and informed that he is not getting 2 mbps as provided under the plan, the opposite party's Engineers visited and checked the complainant's broad band connection and informed that the complainant was getting 800 kbs (8 mbps) at the point of their inspection. At the time of inspection, the complainant repeatedly informed the opposite party's officials about lesser

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