Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/146

Geo gas agencies - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Joseph - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Jayachandran

02 Aug 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/146

Geo gas agencies
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sai Joseph
The Manager,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Geo gas agencies

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sai Joseph 2. The Manager,

For the Appellant :
1. K.P.Jayachandran

For the Respondent :
1. 2.



ORDER

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.

 

 
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
            APPEAL:146/2008
 
                             JUDGMENT DATED.2..8..2008
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              : MEMBER
 
The Proprietor,
Geo Gas, VI/71, Nedumpara Building,                : APPELLANT
Olamattom, Thodupuzha.
 
(By Adv.Sri.K.P.Jayachandran)
 
          V.
1.Saji Joseph,
 Paradiyil House,
 Puliyanthuruthil Building,
 Near Vattakkavil Palam,
 Karinmannoor.P.O, Thodupuzha.                            : RESPONDENTS
 
2.The Manager,
 Indane Area Office,
 Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Panampilly Avenue, Kochi-25.
 
                                     JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party/gas agency ie, under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost with 12% interest on the amount of compensation.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the appellant forced him to purchase the gas stove for providing the gas connection which was allotted to him by the 2nd opposite party/Indian Oil Corporation. Opposite party/appellant has denied the allegation.
3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant and PW2 an independent witness. DW1 is the representative of the 1st opposite party.
4.  The Forum has found that the appellant is guilty of insisting for the purchase of the gas stove for giving him the gas connection. We find that the matter is confined to the realm of appreciation of evidence.  The evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant consisted of the oral testimony supported by that of an independent witness.  No patent illegality could be pointed out in the appreciation of evidence. Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
                              JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
                              VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
VL.



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN