KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.626/03 JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.08 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Managing Director, Malabar Fuel Corporation, : APPELLANT Post Box No.107, Thaliparamba, Kannur District, Pin-670 141. (By Adv.K.L.Narasimhan & Others) Vs 1.Thanbkamani, Kajikalath Veedu, Pallipad, Karthikapally. 2.Saji, Proprietor, Mullakkal Gas Agencies, : RESPONDENTS (Distributor – Malabar Fuel Corporation) Haripad P.O., Pin – 690 514. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in OP 103/01 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant and the first opposite party/dealer are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5075/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The case of the appellant is that relationship between the appellant and the first opposite party is that of principal to principal and not that of principal and agent. The second opposite party/appellant is the manufacturer of gas and the second opposite party is the distributor. Hence according to him the appellant is not liable for the deficiency in service of that of the distributor. 2. The case of the complainant is that she obtained gas connection from the first opposite party/dealer of the gas manufacturer on 7.1.99. She paid a sum of Rs.5,210/- and obtained the gas connection. It is subsequently after supply on a few occasion only the fist opposite party discontinued supplying gas and the empty gas cylinder was also taken back. 3. The first opposite party stood exparte and the second opposite party/appellant has contended that there is no privity of contract between him and the consumer. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 and RW1 the Manager of the second opposite party. 5. We find that the appellant/second opposite party has not produced any objective evidence to establish the fact that the transaction with him and the first opposite party stands closed after the supply of the gas by the appellant to the first opposite party. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the gas has to be supplied by the second opposite party to the first opposite party for the purpose of distribution to the consumers, it can not be held that the second opposite party/appellant has no control over the first opposite party. In the circumstances the first opposite party/distributor can only be treated as an agent of the appellant. In the circumstances we find that no reasons are made out to disturb the findings of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs as the respondents has not entered appearance in the appeal. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV | 
