1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 26.05.2009 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1256 and 1257 of 2008, whereby Appeal No.1256 filed by him was dismissed and Appeal No.1257 of 2008 filed by Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No. 1 was allowed.

2.       Case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that he tried to book his gas cylinder but Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the bookings for 21 days without any reason. As per provisions of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations, the gas cylinder must be delivered within 48 hours from booking. Opposite Party No.2 announced the Ideal Gas Distribution System and published a booklet called 'Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations' (for short, “IGDS Regulations’) governing the rights of the Consumer and responsibility of the Collector in the event of a Complaint. Gas distributors must obey these Regulations. In case of violation of the provisions of IGDS Regulations, it is the duty of the Collector to take necessary action in the matter. The Complainant filed an application with Opposite Party No.2 to take action against Opposite Party No.1 for violating the regulations by not delivering the gas cylinder within 48 hours of booking, but Opposite Party No.2 failed to take any action. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant filed Complaint Case No.250/2008 with the District Forum with the following prayer:-

1. “Opponent No. 1 should not refuse to accept the booking for gas cylinders under the pretext of Rule of 21 days.
2. Opponent No. 1, be directed to supply gas cylinder within 48 hours from booking as per Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations.
3. Opponent No.1 be directed to strictly obey all the provisions of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations.
4. Opponent No.2 be directed to lodge a complaint against Opponent No. 1 as he has committed breach of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations.
5. Opponent No.2 be directed to take action against all the Gas-Distributors who contravene the provisions of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations.
6. That an amount of Rs.1,000/- be awarded to the complainant as nominal compensation from Opponent No.1 against the suffering caused to him due to deficient services rendered by him. So also an amount of Rs.1,000/- be awarded to the complainant as nominal compensation from Opponent No.2 towards the costs of this complaint as the complainant is constrained to file this complaint due to inaction on the part of Opponent No.2.”

3.       The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing separate written statements. Opposite Party No.1 stated that they had not refused any service to the Complainant. Distribution of gas cylinders is made under the supervision of Tehsildar, Taluka Supply Office and Sales Officer of Opposite Party No.1. If the Complainant was aggrieved by the services of Opposite Party No.1, he could make Complaint to the aforesaid officers, which the Complainant did not do. Further, twice a month Gas Adalat is held to address Consumer Complaints regarding the Ideal Gas Distribution System. The Complainant also failed to make any complaint in the Gas Adalat. There was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

4.       Opposite Party No.2, stated that the responsibility of accepting gas cylinder bookings and delivering them was of Opposite Party No.1/distributor. If the distributor fails to perform their duties, Tahasildar was to take necessary action against them. The Complainant had not filed any Complaint with the Sales Officer, Tahasildar, or Collector Office. Gas Adalat was also held on the 1^st and 15^th day of each month to oversee the implementation of the Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations. Opposite Party No.2 also organize surprise inspections of the distributors. They also conducted periodical raids with the help of Police and in various cases Complaints had also been lodged against the accused persons. Opposite Party is not guilty of breach of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations.

5.       The District Forum, after hearing the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 16.08.2008, allowed the Complaint with the following direction:-

1. “Opponent Gas agency is hereby directed to supply the gas within 48 hours after the booking.
2. Opponent Gas Agency should not refuse to accept the booking for gas cylinders under the pretext of Rule of 21 days.
3. Opponent Gas Agency is directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony & Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the complaint on or before 20/09/2008.
4. The above order is not followed by the Opponent agency then the complainant is at liberty to file execution petition as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
5. The copy of the said order be send to District Collector.” 

6.        Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum dated 16.08.2008, Petitioner/Complainant filed First Appeal No.1256 of 2008 and Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 filed First Appeal No.1257 of 2008 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 26.05.2009, dismissed First Appeal No.1256 of 2008 and allowed First Appeal No.1257.

7.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2009, Petitioner/Complainant has filed the Present Revision Petition with the following prayer: -

“(a) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash & set aside the Judgment dated 26/05/2009 of The Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal No 1256 of 2008 & Appeal No 1257 of 2008 and confirm the order of the Hon'ble District Forum Sangli.

(b) Interim and ad interim relief in terms of prayer be granted.

(c) any other just & equitable and consequential relief be granted in favour of the appellant as this Hon'ble commission may deem & think fit & proper in the fact & circumstance of the case & in the interest of justice.

(d) the prayers of the original complaint of the complainant be allowed.

(e) cost of this Revision be provided.”

8.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and carefully perused the record. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on 21.06.2022, 09.01.2023 and 27.03.2023.

9.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the State Commission failed to consider that Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the bookings of gas cylinder for 21 days in violation of Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations. Opposite Party No.2 was also negligent in not taking action against Opposite Party No.1, despite Complaint made by the Petitioner. The District Forum rightly allowed the Complaint of the Petitioner. The State Commission failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective.

10.     Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that they are supplying gas cylinders to the customers to their full satisfaction. There is not even a single complaint against them. The Consumer Complaint was filed by the Complainant without any basis. Further, twice a month Gas Adalat is held to address Consumer Complaints regarding the Ideal Gas Distribution System. The Complainant also did not make any complaint in the Gas Adalat. The allegations made by the Complainant were totally false and the State Commission rightly allowed the Appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed the Complaint. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

11.     In para 5 of the order of the District Forum it is mentioned that Opposite Party No.1 admitted that there was delay in supply of gas due to difficulty. In the synopsis of arguments filed before this Commission, it is stated that supply of gas cylinders within 48 hours was not practicable and rested on supply from Bharat Petroleum. It is admitted that as per Ideal Gas Distribution System Regulations the customers are entitled for supply of gas cylinders within 48 hours. The District Forum further held that Opposite Party No.1 did not file any evidence to prove that there was insufficient supply of gas cylinders from the Gas Company and that there was any waiting list. The Complainant also produced the copy of the Complaint before the District Forum showing that Opposite Party No.1 was neither entering the gas booking nor supplying the gas cylinders in time and also dealing badly with the customers.

12.     The District Forum directed Opposite Party No.1 not to refuse the booking of the gas cylinder and supply the same within 48 hours after booking. The District Forum awarded meager compensation of Rs.1000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation payable to the Complainant by the Gas Agency.  

13.     The State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1 holding that direction for supply of gas cylinder within 48 hours cannot be given in view of the judgment of this Commission in Kongra Ananth Ram vs. Telecom District Manager, 1986-94 Consumer 274 (NC & SC). The State Commission did not record any finding regarding not accepting of booking of cylinder by Opposite Party No.1. As stated above, the Complainant produced evidence before the District Forum to show that Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the booking of the Complainant. The State Commission observed as follows: -

“… Further, what Gas Agency was following were the directions given by the controlling authority, namely, Collector and District Magistrate of Sangli under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, L.P.G. (Regulation Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000. ‘Pranali’ offers guidelines and does not imbibe any element amounting to actionable service deficiency of which any consumer complaint could be filed.”

          The State Commission observed that the Gas Agency was following the directions of the controlling authorities under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and LPG (Regulation Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000. Of course, Opposite Party No.1 was following the directions of the controlling authority but no authority gives any direction to any Gas Agency not to accept the booking of the Consumer. Not accepting the gas booking of the Complainant was certainly deficiency in service. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum without touching this aspect of the matter. The impugned order of the State Commission is, therefore, set aside and that of the District Forum is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.