Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Disputing the rationality of the Order dated 03-06-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC/142/2015, this Appeal is moved u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint case was filed alleging supply of a defective gas cylinder by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.

We heard the parties and gone through the documents on record.

On one hand, the allegation of the Respondent No. 1 was that, within an hour of usage of the disputed cylinder, the entire gas inside the cylinder got exhausted. Thereafter, on shaking the cylinder, he noticed peculiar sound emanating from it.  On the other hand, the Appellant denied all the material allegation of the complaint and alleged that for unlawful gain, the instant case was filed.

The disputed gas cylinder being delivered to the Respondent No. 1 on 11-01-2015 vis-à-vis first written complaint lodged on 20-02-2015, it is though alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent No. 1 used the cylinder for approx. 40 days, it appears from the complaint letter dated 20-02-2015 that the Respondent No. 1 stated in unequivocal terms that as soon as the abnormality with the cylinder was detected, verbal complaint was lodged with the Appellant forthwith.  Thereafter also, allegedly, the matter was taken up with it on several occasions, but to no avail. 

It is curious to note that, though the Appellant strongly disputed the aforesaid contention of the Appellant in its WV, on receipt of complaint letter from the Respondent No. 1, it maintained studded silence. Further, it is quite normal for one to make verbal complaint with the dealer at first in order to get the dispute resolved.

In view of this, we find no reason whatsoever to cast any doubt about the contention of the Respondent No. 1 in this regard.

The next objection being made on the part of the Appellant is that for determination of the allegation made by the Respondent No. 1, no expert opinion was sought for. 

In this connection, on a reference to the order sheets pertaining to the complaint case, it is found that on repeated occasions the Respondent No. 2 was directed by the Ld. District Forum to depute an expert to inspect the cylinder, but the Respondent No. 2 did not comply with such directive.  Subsequently, by passing necessary order, the disputed cylinder was brought to the Chamber of the Ld. President of the Forum below for inspection of the same.  In case the Appellant had any objection to the same, it could move a Revision before this  Commission, which it did not do. 

That apart, when the complaint was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 that time also the Appellant or the Respondent No. 2 could depute their representative to find out the veracity of the allegation of the Respondent No. 1.  That was also not done. 

The Act envisage that, where the alleged defects cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum may solicit expert opinion for deriving at a conclusive decision in the matter. 

In this case, however, it is found that, on physical verification of the cylinder in question, the Ld. District Forum found that the same contained liquid substance.  For sure, it is quite unusual for any normal LPG cylinder to contain such foreign substance. 

Thus, in our considered opinion, expert opinion was not at all indispensable for sealing the fate of the case under scrutiny.

Otherwise also, the impugned order appears to be founded on strong reasoning. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.