Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/174/2012

ANURADHA PARTHASARATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.G. BALASUBRAMANIAN - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                          BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                            Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

F.A.NO. 174/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.35/2011 dated 25.10.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur ]

DATED THIS THE 25^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

Anuradha Parthasarathi

Anupa Gas Agency,

19-C3, Rajaji Nagar

Ariyalur                                                                                            ..Appellant/opposite party

                                                                            Vs

M.G.Balasubramanian

S/o Gurusamy

4/84, Mela Veedhi

Thirumanur

Ariyalur District                                                                                ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the  Appellant/opp.party                          : M/s V.Vaithiyalingam

Respondent/complainant                                                 : In person

 

The opposite party is the appellant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Perambalur in CC.No. 35/2011 dated 25.10.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.8.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Perambalur, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        The  opposite party is the appellant.

 2.       The Respondent/complainant applied for provision of gas connection to the opposite party and to pay the amount of Rs.5500/- when she insisted for provision of supply without gas stove, the opposite party said that he cannot give connection and advised to get it from Thiruvaiyaru MKR Gas Agencies. Hence the complainant reported to District Supply Officer and District Collector on 8.8.2011 and also sent the service connection, charge with deposit of Rs.2500/- received by the opposite party on 13.8.2011. Since the opposite party failed to file the written version after the receipt of the summon by sending a letter which was treated as written version and since 49 days lapsed for filing the version, the order was passed on merits, the District Forum allowed the complaint, even though the gas connection was provided on 19.8.2011 as per the letter dated 3.9.2011, since the supply was given after filing the complaint, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service and allowing the complaint directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- also as cost.

3.            Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party filed an appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint and the complainant without waiting for the result for the supply of gas connection rushed to the Forum and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

4.         We have heard the arguments of the complainant and the Respondent /party in person not appeared for hearing and thereby on the basis of materials available the order being passed on merits.

5.              It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant applied for service connection of gas supply from the opposite party for which the supply was given only on 19.8.2011 after filing the complaint on 17.8.2011 and the complainant alleged that she had applied for gas connection supply during the month of August 2011 and addressed to the District collector on 8.8.2011 under Ex.A.4 and sent a letter to the opposite party on 10.8.2011, it was not supplied till 18.8.2011. It was supplied only on 19.8.2011 as per the letter dated 3.9.2011 and the opposite party as pointed out in the order, the opposite party did not come forward with any acceptable reason for not giving gas connection which is readily available for provision. Since the complainant alleged that the opposite party demanded to purchase gas stove which was not monetary for getting gas connection. Hence in those circumstances, it is clear the opposite party only on receipt of summons from the Consumer Forum supplied the gas connection on 19.8.2011 for which the District Forum rightly found that there was deficiency in service and awarded compensation for Rs.10,000/-. While considering the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, when considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the award of sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service in not providing gas connection within the reasonable period is on the higher side and thereby we are inclined to reduce the same to Rs.5000/- and since the District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs, accordingly,

            In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum, Perambalur in CC.No. 35/2011 dated 25.10.2011, reducing the compensation from Rs.10,000/-  to Rs.5000/-  confirming the rest of the order.

            No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI 

  MEMBER                                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER