This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kishan Kishor, against the order dated 01.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.225/2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is a holder of gas connection bearing consumer No.11324 and subscription voucher No.500737373 dated 01.02.1999 in his name with opposite party/respondent.  The delivery of the gas was not done within time.  Normal duration of booking gas is 7-8 days, from the date of booking but in case of the complainant, it took around 32-35 days for delivery of gas cylinder.  Due to the above situation, complainant had to buy 2-3 kgs gas from the open market, for which he has to spend extra money. 

3.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.  The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is a usual practice that the gas dealers do not supply gas cylinder in time and they sell the cylinder in open market and if they are caught but not penalized sufficiently, they are not going to shun this practice.   In the present case, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi, (in short ‘the District Forum’) has found out that in one booking atleast, the booking was cancelled without any request from the complainant and no explanation was offered from the opposite party for the cancellation as well as non-supply of the gas cylinder.  Even then, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/- only to the complainant including the cost of litigation.  The State Commission has also not appreciated the fact that the compensation is required to be awarded not only to compensate the complainant, but also to teach the opposite party a lesson, so that the opposite party improves its services.  In this regard, the learned counsel cited the judgment of Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., decided on 20.09.2000 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has observed the following:-

“While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider.”

4.      It was further pointed by the learned counsel that the State Commission has relied upon the judgement of Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home & Hospital, IV (2010) CPJ 199 and the State Commission has observed the following:-

“Compensation has to be reasonable.  It is not to enrich the consumer.” 

5.      It was stated by the learned counsel that in this very judgement, the National Commission has rather increased the compensation.  Thus, reasonableness has to be seen from both sides but the compensation should not be very less so that it does not reasonably compensate and it should not be very large so as to enrich the complainant.  In the present case, the compensation is very meagre, therefore, it should be brought to a reasonable level.

6.      The present revision petition has been filed only for enhancement of the compensation.

7.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  The order of the State Commission clearly mentions that the complaint was made about two bookings of the gas cylinder and one booked cylinder was given after 7-8 days.  However, second booking was cancelled, but no explanation was given by the opposite party.  Based on this deficiency of the opposite party, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/-.  Perhaps the District Forum has taken into account the hardship suffered by the complainant when he could not use the cylinder as the same was not supplied by the opposite party after cancellation of the booking.  As per Section 14(1)(d), the District Forum can award an amount as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the opposite party.  Accordingly, the District Forum has provided roughly cost of two cylinders plus some more amount, which may be treated as cost of litigation.  The State Commission has also considered this compensation as sufficient and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.  As both the fora below have given concurrent finding and under these circumstances, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

(2) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the following:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”     

8.      Based on the above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the facts cannot be reassessed at the level of revision petition when the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts.  As no question of law is involved in the present matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission which in my view does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the revision petition No.3884 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.