KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 142/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 28/2/2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

1. Madhu, S/o Gopalan,                               : APPELLANTS

    (Agent Sabari Gas Service,

    Bharat Gas, Vadasserikara,

    Pathanamthitta.

2. Divisional Manager,

    Bharat Petroleum, Trivandrum

(for Bharat Petroleum Corporation,

  Tatapuram.P.O., Kochin)

(By Adv.N.T.Gopalan)

            Vs.

George Varghese,                                        RESPONDENT

Mulaelil Kunnath Mannil,

Kumaram Peroor, Thekkekara,

Kumpalathaman,

Vadasserikkara,

Pathanamthitta.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 37/2010 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The 1^st opposite party running a gas agency is under orders to pay  a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 10% from the date of the order.

          2. The case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party who is the distributor of gas cylinders supplied by the 2^nd opposite party/Bharat Petroleum Corporation committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in not supplying LPG to the complainant out of vengeance as he objected to practice of the 1^st opposite party collecting amounts upto Rs.50/- in excess to the actual bill amount.  The complainant is residing within the area allotted to the 1^st opposite party.  It is alleged that on various occasions he was denied supply of cylinders and on other occasions cylinders were supplied much subsequent to the supply to his neighbors who had booked the cylinders subsequently.  He has sought for compensation of Rs.50000/-.  3. The 1^st opposite party in the version filed has denied the allegations altogether.  According to him it is as per the seniority in booking and on the basis the availability of the cylinders that the distribution has been made.  It is stated that the complainant had made several complaints before District Collector and to the 2^nd opposite party.  On enquiries made he was absolved.

          4. The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte before the Forum.

          5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Ext.A1 to A5. It is noted by the Forum that the complainant was not also cross examined.

          6. The complainant apart from his oral evidence had also produced newspaper reports in malayala manorama daily with photograph of a satyagraha by the Block Panchayat Vice President before the gas delivery van as a protest against none delivery of gas cylinder by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 is certified copy of the enquiry  report dated 27.3.10 of Taluk Supply Officer, Ranni in connection with the enquiry conducted by him with respect of the allegations against the 1^st opposite party/appellant by the complainant and others.  Ext.A3 series are the certified copies of the statements of 7 customers of the 1^st opposite party recorded by the TSO, Ranni in connection with the enquiry.  Ext.A5 is the relevant pages of the customer’s book in the name of the complainant.  The Forum has considered the above. The Forum has noted that in  Ext.A2 report the TSO, Ranni had clearly  stated that the 1^st opposite party had committed irregularities such as collection of excess charges and that 1^st opposite party did not provide cylinders at the residence of certain customers and that there was no regular supply of cylinders and that the 1^st opposite party is not giving the booking  number to the customers who are  booking through telephone and  that there was no proper register  at the godown for the distribution of cylinders.  The Forum has noted that the above said acts are clear violations of LPG(Regulation of Supply and distribution) Order 2000.  The Forum has noted that the 2^nd opposite party Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Civil Supplies Department of Kerala Govt. did not take any action against the 1^st opposite party.  The Forum has also directed the 2^nd opposite party to initiate appropriate action against the 1^st opposite party.  The Forum has also directed the copy of the judgment be forwarded to Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Government of Kerala for necessary action.  We find that the counsel for the appellants could not point out any patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

                    JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

ps