No. 11/04.11.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mrs. Nabanita Kar, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Dibyojyoti Raha, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. Samiran Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 files Vokalatnama.  Appellant files BNA.

This case relates to the short supply of cooking gas in a cylinder by the O.Ps.  The case of the Complainant is that on 04.03.2009 the O.P. No. 1 supplied one gas cylinder containing cooking gas to the Complainant.  After such delivery Complainant became suspicious about its actual weight.  The same was accordingly weight by the Complainant and found 540 gms less in quantity of gas contained in the said cylinder. Hence the complaint case.

The concerned District Forum sent the aforesaid cylinder for examination by the Legal Metrology Department.  Upon such inspection a report was sent to the concerned District Forum.  The said report also corroborated the allegation that the cylinder contained 476 gmsless quantity of gas.  In cross-examination, the Inspector of the said Legal Metrology Department who had carried out the examination has stated that the said cylinder was brought to him in sealed condition with the engraved Serial No. 6083885.  There being no other material evidence on the side of the O.Ps the said complaint case has been disposed of by directing the O.P. No. 1 to supply a fresh gas cylinder in lieu of the questioned one within a period of one month from the date of the said order with further direction upon the said O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for the mental harassment suffered by the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- by way of litigation cost. 

In this appeal threefold arguments have been made on behalf of the Appellant – O.P. No. 1 and the Proforma Respondent No. 2 who is the manufacturer of the cylinder cooking gas.  First, it has been contended that the cylinder was supplied to the Complainant after weighing the same in presence of the Complainant.  Unfortunately no document has been produced by the O.P. No. 1 to establish that before delivery of the said cylinder to the Complainant the said cylinder was weighed by the deliveryman in presence of the Complainant.  Nor the deliveryman has been examined in the above complaint case.  Secondly, the said cylinder was not in appropriate sealed condition when the same was sent to the Legal Metrology Department.  Such contention also has no foundation.  The Inspector of the Legal Metrology Department who carried out the examination of the said cylinder has been cross-examined in the complaint case.  In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that the said cylinder was brought to him in a sealed condition with the engraved serial number as above.  No evidence has been led by the O.Ps to establish that the seal of the said cylinder was tampered after it was delivered to the Complainant.  The O.Ps also did not ask for examination of the said cylinder by any other expert for finding out whether seal of the cylinder was kept intact before it was sent to the Legal Metrology Department for examination.  Thirdly, it has been alleged that the O.P. No. 1 was not allowed to be present at the time of examination of the said cylinder by the Legal Metrological Department.  The said cylinder was sent to the Legal Metrology Department for examination by an expert in this regard.  The presence of the O.Ps before such an impartial expert is not at all necessary.  The principle of natural justice has been fully complied with by giving opportunity to the O.Ps to cross-examine the particular person who had examined the said cylinder. 

For all the aforesaid reasons the contentions put forward by the Appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 are rejected.  However, considering the negligible less quantity of gas supplied in the said cylinder we are of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved by directing the O.P. No. 1 to supply a fresh gas cylinder in lieu of the old one along with cost of litigation as awarded by the District Forum without directing any payment by way of compensation for the mental harassment, if any, suffered by the Complainant.  The impugned judgement and order of the District Forum is accordingly modified.  The O.P. No. 1 is, therefore, directed to supply a fresh gas cylinder in lieu of the questioned one immediately preferably within a period of 15 days from this date.  The said O.P. No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of litigation cost to the Complainant within the aforesaid period.  The appeal is thus disposed of.