KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL .No.507/2009 JUDGMENT DATED : 24.03.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bikampady, Mangalore, : APPELLANTS Karnataka State. 2. The Director Marketing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 486, Currimbhoy Road, Ballal Estate Mumbai – 01( represented by the 1st appellant by name Tunga Lakshmi Narayanan being power of Attorney Holder) (By Adv.Sri.P.Sudhakaran) Vs 1. P.V.Balan, House No.1/86, Thiruvathira, : RESPONDENTS Susbaraya Anantha Kamath Road, Kasargod.P.O., 2. Blue Flame Agencies, Bharat Gas Distributor, Kalnad Complex, Railway Station Road, Kasargod. (1st Respondent rep. by Adv.Sri.Mithunsree Mohan) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in the file of C.C.No.179/08 dated 06.07.2009. The opposite parties 2 and 3 prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. As per the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties alleged that the opposite parties committed deficiency in the service by supplying the refilled LPG cylinders as per the requirements of the consumer. The complainant after booking the gas to wait 38 to 42 dya for getting delivery of refilled gas cylinders. The complainant that prays for an order directing the opposite parties to supply the refilled gas cylinder within 10 days from the date of booking and also a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties appeared and filed the separate versions. The opposite party No.1 filed his version and denied all the allegation of the complainant. According to the opposite party there is no willful delay for latches in supplying the filled gas cylinders. The opposite parties 1,2 and 3 filed their version and contended that the complainant requested them to interfere in the problem of the complainant. They contended that as per the case the delay in supply of cylinder is on account of inability of the distributor to uplift adequate number of loads. To improve this numerous discussions have been conducted and letters have also been sent to the opposite party No.1. Thereafter opposite party No.1 had given assurance that he will improve the service to the customers. In that connection opposite parties 2 and 3 had also taken penal action against opposite party No.1. Hence opposite party No.1 alone is responsible if there is any delay in supplying the gas cylinders. The complainant filed proof affidavit and he was cross examined by the counsels for the opposite parties 1 to 3. On the side of 2 and 3 the documents Ext.B1 to B7 were marked. The Forum below heard both sides and allowed the complaint, directed the opposite party No.1 being the distributor of liquefied gas to supply refilled gas cylinders to the complainant within 10 days from the date of booking. Failing which he shall pay a compensation of Rs.10/- each per day from the date of 10th day of booking till delivery towards the expenses he incur to find out alternative fuel for cooking. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards the compensation for the hardships and mental agony suffered by the complainant with a cost of Rs.2000/-. This appeal prefers the appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before the Commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellants argued on the ground of the appeal memorandum that the relation between the appeals and the 1st opposite party commit any laches or irregular in his course of day to day business the principal is not having any liability or responsibility. He further submitted that even after getting complaint from the complainant they initiated action again the 1st opposite party the distributar. They pointed out that Ext.B1 Email sent by the complainant to the C.P. and it is a clear evidence that the complainants is fully satisfied about the quick actions of the appellants and any other contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the complainant was not having any allegations in the complaint against this opposite parties (appellants). The allegations raised only against the 1st opposite party alone. Even though the Forum below fixed liability against this appellants also. It is illegal and irregular also not strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. He submitted that the order passed by the Forum below is against the provisions of law. So it is not legally sustainable. It is liable to be quashed. The counsel for the complainant/respondent appeared and vehemently argued that this appeals cannot be washed out their responsibility from the latches and negligence if any thing committed by the 1st opposite party who submitted that the relation between the 1st opposite party is not merely an agent and principal. The appellant is fully owned by the central government. They are having same statutory obligation to the complainant/consumer. They are having some duty to follow up the day to day business of the 1st opposite party. This commission perused the available evidence in the case bundle and heard the arguments from both sides. We are not seeing the liabilities of the appellants are not merely the relation between the principal and agent as per the contract Act. The liquefied Petroleum Gas is subsidiaries and supplied only for cooking purpose on subsidiary rate to the families. The subsidiary is a grant from the public exchequer to ensure welfare of the community. It is a welfare policy of the Central Government. The government is spending high amount as subsidiary for LPG gas and supplying to the public. It is a commodity level welfare activity. The appellant being his function same legal obligations according to the provisions of the liquefied petroleum gas (regulations of supply and distribution or to 2007). The sale Officer from an oil company is along competent to enter and seize the samples of petroleum products including LPG gas as per the provisions of the Essential commodities Act. They are competent to take penal action against violators from the LPG Regulation order. Suppose the appellants are actively interfering in the day to day business of the distributors of LPG gas there is no question of shortage of gas will be arised in the case of the consumers. The gas consumers need not worry about the booking and delivery of the gas cylinders. But in this case it seen that the appellant gas company is taking some positive attitude towards the consumers. Their silence and support to the dealer is nothing but a part and parcel of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the order 9 of the liquefied petroleum gas(regulates of supply and distributions) ordered 2000 deals with the procurement, shortage and sale of liquefied petroleum gas limited by a distributor. As per 9 ( c) of the said order distributor is bound to maintain sufficient stock at the business premises at work times but in this case the appellants are kept silence about the order 9/9 (c ) of the LPG order 2000. The appellant is not having any case that they have taken any action against the 1st opposite party distributor. In their version they supported the 1st opposite party throw their contention like the non- supply of gas cylinder was due to the shortage of supply of gas cylinders to the distributor. We are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below isstrictly accordance with the law and evidence. The Forum below cited two decisions in their order. 1. K.G.Sathyanarayan vs. Bharat Petroleum 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Rajeshkumar Prajapati & Others Both this decisions are discussed the same fact, that the principal is having responsibility for the act done by the agent. In this result this appeal is dismissed. This commission is decided to modified the order passed by the Forum below. The 1st opposite party distributor is direct to supply liquified gas cylinders to the complainant within a shortest time subject to the availability of the stock, failing which he will pay a compensation of Rs.10 each per day from the date of 24 hours of booking till delivery towards the expenses incurred to find alternative fuel for cooking. He is also directed to provide stock register to the complainant if he required to verified it. The opposite parties 1 and 3 are direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation in the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant and set aside the cost of Rs.2000/-. We also direct the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties took ensure the distributors to stock required quantify of LPG gas cylinders in their premises to conduct their business and to supply to the consumers on their requirements. They are also bound to provide the stock register to any of the customers on their request failure the 2nd and 3rd opposite party are direct to take penal action against the distributors. Under order 9 and 9 ( c) of the Liquefied Petroleum gas (Regulations of supply and distributions) order 2002 and according to the Sec.3 & 7 of the Essential commodities Act. The opposite parties are direct to file their action taken report before this commission within two months after receipt of this order. The disobedience of the order passed by this commission is liable to be punishment 3 years imprisonment and fine Rs.10,000/- or both as per the Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act 2003. This direction is highly necessary for the interest of the consumers of the state. Both parties are direct to suffer their own respective cost. The points of the appeal are answered accordingly. This appeal is dismissed. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
