IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:12.09.2014

First Appeal- 838/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 08.08.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 502/11 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, New Delhi)

Shri Shiv Singh,

S/o Shri Daya Nand Yadav,

R/o H.No.912, Gali No.E-40, Molar Band Extension,

Badarpur, New Delhi.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

M/s. Anand Gas Services,

379-B, Main Mathura Road,

Near Gurudwara, Badarpur,

New Delhi-110044.

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.                Heard.                  

2.                The appellant has challenged the order dated 8.8.13 passed by the District Forum-X, New Delhi whereby compensation/cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded to him. 

3.                The complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum wherein the allegations were that the respondent gas agency had provided him one gas cylinder in June, 2011 and on checking it was found less in weight by 5k.g.  When he had informed the respondent/agency, his request was rejected and concerned person of respondent agency threatened to close the gas connection of appellant.  It is stated that appellant had also written a letter to Ministry of Petroleum on 26.9.11 for taking action in the matter.  He had prayed for the grant of compensation to him for getting cylinder from private agency as well as having incurred other expenses. 

4.                The grievance of appellant is that meagre amount of compensation has been given by the District Forum.  He has contended that considering the facts and circumstances, he was entitled for more compensation.    

5.                Perusal of impugned order shows that the District Forum has observed that the complainant had already filed a complaint with the concerned official in the Ministry of Petroleum which informed the appellant that he was within his right to get his connection transferred to other agency.  The District Forum also observed that there was no cogent evidence to prove that the gas cylinder was less in weight by 5k.g.  Despite observing above, the District Forum gave directions to respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant towards compensation/costs of litigation.  We find no illegality in the order.  There is also a delay of one year in filing the present appeal for which no cogent explanation is given.

6.                Further, appellant had also filed execution of the impugned order and in said proceeding, he has already received compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- from respondent and thereafter present appeal is filed.

7.                No case for interference is made out.  The appeal is dismissed.