Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/192/2015

Sri Naga Gas Agency, Rep. by its Proprietor K. Ravichandran, Indane Distributor-I.O.C. - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.N. Govindarajan & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

R.N. Amarnath,

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE. DR.S. TAMILVANAN                President

              THIRU.K. BASKARAN                                                            Judicial   Member   

 

F.A.No.192/2015

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.31/2012 dated 19.11.2014 on the file of the District Forum Chengalpattu)

 

 THURSDAY THE 11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018.

                                                 

 

Sri  Naga Gas Agency

Represented by its proprietor K. Ravi Chandran

Indane Distributor – I.O.C.

Door No. 3/19 Devarajanar Street

Vedachalam Nagar Chengalpattu

Kancheepuram District – 603 001.                             Appellant/2^nd Opposite Party

 

 

                                         Vs

 

1.  C.N. Govindarajan

     S/o. Natarajan

     Door No. 9/3 Reddy Lane

     Thirukazhukundaram

     Kancheepuram District.                                       1^st Respondent/Complainant  

 

2.  The Regional Manager

     Indane Gas  (Regional Office)

     Door No.500  Anna Salai

     Teynampet                                                         

     Chennai – 600 018.                                            2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

    

 

For Appellant/2^nd opposite party          :   M/s. R.N. Amarnath Advocate.

1^st  Respondent/complainant               :   Appeared and conducted the case in person   

For 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party   :   M/s. P.S. Sivasubramanian Advocate. 

 

 

             This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 02.01.2018 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records this Commission made the following:  

ORDER

THIRU.K. BASKARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER.

 

              This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2^nd opposite party under section 17 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum Chengalpattu passed in C.C.No.31/2012 dated 19.11.2014 allowing the complaint    

1.      The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows; - For the sake of convenience the parities are referred to as they stood arrayed in the District Forum.  The complaint filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum alleging inter alia that the 2^nd opposite party who is a dealer of the LPG under the 1^st opposite party  through its employee demanded an excess amount other than the bill amount when the LPG gas refill cylinder was delivered to the complainant and when the same was refused by the complainant the employee of the 2^nd opposite party abused the complainant in filthy language and when the same was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party he had supported his employee without taking any action; that because of this the 2^nd opposite party went on committing deficiency after deficiency in the matter of delivery of LPG gas cylinder refill and not delivered  LPG refill  delivered with lesser weight  delivered leaky refills and in not registering the bookings made by the complainant and in not properly attending the phone calls made by the complainant and in making the complainant to unnecessarily wait for long period and telephone line;  that when the complainant gave a defective regulator for doing repairing on 02.08.2010 instead of replacing the same with a new regulator the opposite party gave another defective regulator; that the 2^nd opposite party got agitated against the complainant for his sending complaint to higher officers and consumer help line.  The 2^nd opposite sent his manager to the house of the complainant on 16.12.2009 who threatened the complainant and the complainant had sent a complaint regarding this to the higher authorities but no action was taken;  that on 09.02.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant was sleeping in his house  hooligans of the 2^nd opposite party  threatened the complainant that if he did not withdraw all the complaints preferred against the 2^nd opposite party they would take different actions and regarding these the complainant had lodged a complaint on 10.02.2012 with a higher police officers and even after that on 12.02.2012 at about 6.00 in the morning a rowdy sent by the 2^nd opposite party came to the house of the complainant and threatened his wife that if the complainant did not withdraw the complaints given against the 2^nd opposite party they would have to face dire consequences.  In spite of several complaints made with the 1^st opposite party regarding the deficiencies committed by the 2^nd opposite party the 1^st opposite party did not take any action.  Hence this complaint was filed for the relief of payment of compensation of Rs.100000/- each by the opposite parties 1 and 2 besides cost of the proceedings.  

2.      The 1^st opposite party was remained absent and set exparte before the District Forum.   The defence of the 2^nd opposite party in the written version is that total denial of the entire allegations made in the complaint by the complainant.    

3.       The learned trial Forum had on the pleadings of the respective parties recorded a findings to the effect that the 2^nd opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service and the 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and that the 2^nd opposite party/appellant has to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for deficiency in service besides Rs.1000/- as costs to the complainant.    

4.       Hence aggrieved 2^nd opposite party has come before us by way of this appeal.  In the memorandum of grounds of appeal it is stated that the learned District Forum had not appreciated oral and documentary evidence and had erred in taking into account of the facts and passed an erratic order was passed by the District Forum while deciding the present case and the findings recorded by the learned District Forum were not based on the evidences.   

5.       The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the learned District Forum dated 19.11.2014 made in C.C.No.31/2012 has to be set aside and the complaint has to be dismissed ?

6.        Point: - At the outset we noticed that the complaint filed by the complainant is not in proper frame in as much as the 2^nd opposite party had not been properly described in the small cause title and long cause title.  The 2^nd opposite party was described in the complaint as Naga Gas Agency  (Indane Gas Distributor) Door No.3/19 Devarajanar Street Vedachalam Nagar Chengalpattu Kancheepuram District- 603 001.  From this it can be seen that the 2^nd opposite party is not a natural person and hence it could be uttered a Company Private Limited or Public or a Firm or a Proprietary Concern.  In a jurisdictional person other than the natural person could be represented by somebody.  But in this case the jurisdictional person alone was impleaded and not represented by anybody.  From the cause title given in the memorandum of grounds of appeal we can come to the conclusion that the 2^nd opposite party is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Mr.K. Ravichandran.  It is surprising to note that the learned District Forum had also taken the complaint on file when the complaint was not properly framed in as much as proprietary concern was arrayed as party without being represented by anybody and as to how the office of this Commission had numbered the appeal and preferred by a person not tallying with the description of the person in the complaint and in the impugned order.  Because in the impugned order the 2^nd opposite party is described as Naga Gas Agency and the order directing payment of compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-was ordered against the  Naga Gas Agency  alone.  But the present appeal was preferred by Sri Naga Gas Agency represented by its proprietor K. Ravi Chandran which was not a party in the complaint in C.C.No.31/2012 and as not a party against whom the order directing payment of money was passed by the learned District Forum.  

7.            Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the present appellant is not a party in the complaint in C.C.No.31/2012 and as well as not a party in the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned District Forum in C.C.No.31/2012 and hence the present appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal which was inadvertently taken on file and placed before us for disposal.

8.               At this juncture it is pertinent to note that even though the learned District Forum inadvertently passed an order against the proprietary concern not represented by the proprietor still that cannot be set aside by this Commission for the simple reason that the present appellant cannot maintain this appeal. The next question that would arise is whether on hyper technicalities an illegal order by allowed to remain on record.  Our answerer is that as the appeal as preferred by the present appellant is one preferred by a person who has no locus standi cannot be entertained at all.   The 2^nd opposite party had suffered an order at the hands of the learned District Forum can work out his remedy in a manner known to the law. 

9.            Hence in the light of the discussion held above we hold that the appeal filed by the present appellant is not maintainable as it has no locus standi to maintain the same.  Hence we are not proceeding to decide the point on merits based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. 

10.                 In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs in this appeal.  

 

 

K. BASKARAN                                                                         S. TAMILVANAN

JUDICIAL MEMBER.                                                                     PRESIDENT.