Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/6/09

M/S KAVERI INDIANE SERVICES - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR.M.VENKATESH - Opp.Party(s)

M/S MANNE HARI BABU

07 Mar 2011

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/6/09
(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/12/2008 in Case No. C.C.22/2008 of District Chittoor-II at triputi)
 
1. M/S KAVERI INDIANE SERVICES
H.NO.19-56/1/4, HYDERABAD ROAD, NEAR BUST DEPARTMENT, SIDDIPET-502 103.
SANGA REDDY
Andhra Pradesh
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MR.M.VENKATESH
H.NO.4-4-39, PATELPURA, SIDDIPETA, MEDAK DIST.
SANGA REDDY
Andhra Pradesh
2. DIST.CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER
CIVIL SUPPLY GODOWNS, MANJEERA NAGAR, SANGAREDDY-502 001.
SANGAREDDY
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. L.P.G.INDIAN AREA OFFICER
AREA MANAGER, H.NO.3-6-336, 2ND FLOOOR, NARSAPUR HOUSE, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYD-500 029.
HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD

 

F.A.No.6 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.No.22 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

 

Between:

M/s Kaveri Indane Services
LPG Gas Dealer, H.No.19-56/1/4
Hyderabad Road, Near Bus Depot
Siddipet-103

                                                               

A N D

1.           

                                                               2.                  nd                         

                                               

       

Counsel for the Appellant                    

Counsel for the Respondents No.1          

Counsel for the Respondent No.3           

 

QUORUM:  

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

 

MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

  

 

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                                        

1.    

2.       The complainant has purchased kerosene for about four months and incurred an expenditure of`500/- due to non-supply of the refill by the opposite party no.1 and his wife became sick because of preparation of the meals by other modes of cooking. 

3.       

4.    

5.      6.    `10,000/- towards compensation and costs besides the direction for regular supply of LPG to the complainant while the President had awarded `2,000/- compensation and`1,000/- towards costs against the opposite parties no.1 and 2. 

7.      

8.    

1)                                       Whether the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were guilty of negligence in supply of the LPG refill to the complainant?

2)                                       To what relief?

 

9.              

10.       

11.      

12.   `2,000/- towards compensation and`1,000/- towards costs. `10,000/- as awarded as compensation

12.     `2,000/- towards compensation and`1,000/- towards costs. `1,000/-. 

 

 

                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                     KMK*

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.