KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A.367/09 JUDGMENT DATED : 15.01.2010 PRESENT:- SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Licensee, : APPELLANT St.Antony’s Gas Agency, Adimali.P.O., Idukki District. (By Adv.Sri.T.L.Sreeram) Vs Joy Mathew, Kariprayil House, South Kathippara.P.O., : RESPONDENT Mannamkandam Village, Idukki District. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 30th December 2008 of the CDRF Idukki in C.C.No.160/08. Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in the said C.C.No.160/08. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in supplying LPG cylinder at the residence of the complainant. The opposite party filed written version and denied the alleging deficiency of service on his part. It was contended that the complainant used to collect the LPG cylinder at Kathippara and that it is not possible for the opposite party to supply filled gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in C.C.160/08. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1, customer service book was also marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the Forum below allowed the complaint in C.C.160/08 and thereby directed the opposite party to supply the filled LPG cylinder at the residence of the complainant. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- by way of cost of proceedings. Hence the present appeal. 3. When the appeal was taken up for admission hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that all the customers in that particular area used to collect filled LPG gas cylinders from Kathipara and the complaint is filed without any reason or basis. It is further submitted that it is impossible for the appellant/opposite party to supply filled LPG cylinder to customers/consumers because of the peculiar nature of the terrain in high range area. Thus, the appellant requested admitting the present appeal. 4. Admittedly the respondent/complainant is a consumer of LPG with Consumer No.9276 and that the appellant/opposite party is the dealer-cum-licensee of Bharat Gas in that area. The respondent/ complainant is a resident of South Kathippara. It is the definite case of the respondent/complainant that he availed the service of the appellant/opposite party for getting filled gas cylinder at his residence. It is also the case of the respondent/complainant that at the time of taking the LPG connection the appellant/complainant agreed for supply of filled gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant. Ext.P1 Customer Service Book would support the case of the complainant. The Forum below has also relied on the conditions incorporated in P1 customer service book. Thus, it is admitted fact that as per the rules and regulations the appellant/respondent being the licensee of Bharat Gas is bound to supply filled gas cylinders at the residence of the consumers/customers. The Forum below has rightly directed the opposite party to supply refilled gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant. 5. The opposite party could not adduce any evidence in support of his case that he being the licensee of Bharat gas is only bound to supply refilled gas cylinders at the place known as Kathippara. The appellant/opposite party could not adduce any evidence in support of his case that there was no duty cast upon him to supply refilled gas cylinders at the residence of the consumers/ customers. The appellant could not give any explanation for the conditions incorporated in P1 customers service book regarding his duty to supply refilled gas cylinders at the residence of the consumers. 6. The case of the appellant/opposite party is that there was a meeting convened by the District Collector and it was decided to deliver refilled gas cylinders at a particular place considering the peculiar nature of the terrain in the high range area. But the appellant could not substantiate such a case. The mere fact that on some occasion the complainant collected filled gas cylinder from kathippara or from the go down of the opposite party agency cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the opposite party is not liable to supply refilled gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant/consumer. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed. There is no reason or ground warranting interference in the matter. The appellant/opposite party could not make out a case in his favour. It is also to be noted that no evidence has been adduced from the side of the opposite party to substantiate his contention that he need not supply refilled gas cylinder at the premises of the complainant. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. No purpose will be served by admitting this appeal. The forum below has only directed the opposite party (appellant) to supply refilled cylinder at the residence of the complainant. The Forum below has also taken a lenient view in awarding compensation of Rs.500/- with cost of Rs.2,000/-. So, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 30.12.08 passed by CDRF, Idukki in C.C.160/08 is confirmed. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Kb. | 
