Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/336/2017

Pon Ramesh S/o Ponnusamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thiru.Mathi Thenmozhi Durai Collector, - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

12 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:          Hon’ble Thiru.Justice R.SUBBIAH           ::    PRESIDENT

                       Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI             ::      MEMBER

 

FA.No.336/2017

DATED THE    12^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

Pon. Ramesh,

P.Box No.1/185, Railadi Street, 28, Kurumabal,

Manali-610 203.

Thiruthuripoondi Vattam,

 Thiruvarur District.                                                          …Appellant/Complainant

                                                          Vs.

1.SMT. Thenmozhi B.Sc ,

   Another Special District Collector,

   Social Welfare Scheme,

   District Collector Office,

   Nagapattinam.

 

2.Thiru Taluk Supply Officer,

   Taluk Supply Office,

   Thiruthuraipoondi – 614 713.

 

3.Thiru Tahsildar Officer,

   Tahsildar  Office,

   Thiruthuraipoondi.

 

4.Thiru District Supply  Officer,

   District Supply  Officer,

   District Collector Complex,

   Thiruvarur.

 

5.Thiru. District Revenue Officer,

   District Revenue Officer,

   District Collector Complex,

   Thiruvarur.

 

6.District Collector Officer,

   District Collector Officer,

   Thiruvarur.                                                                   …Respondents / Opposite Parties

 

Pon Ramesh                        :   Appellant  in person

A.Thangamani                              :  Respondent in person

              This Appeal  having come up for final hearing before us on 29.10.2021 and on hearing the arguments of appellant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

1.TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI   MEMBER

     1.        The complainant before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.        For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Forum.

2. The factual background leading to this appeal

 

          The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Respondents in not returning the complainant’s domestic  Gas Cylinder and for compensation. It was submitted that the complainant was driving the auto on 18.08.2009 with  domestic Gas Cylinder belonging to one K. Rajan and the gas cylinder was supposed to be distributed by one Thiruthuraipoondi Maria Gas Agency to the said K.Rajan in the complainant’s Auto. When the complainant was inspected by the Revenue Divisional Officer & men belonging to his office, the domestic  gas cylinder in his auto was seized by them on the ground that  it was an offence u/s 3 ( c )  of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. But when the said K.Rajan enquired about his gas cylinder, the complainant was left with no option had to give his own gas cylinder to him which was  kept for his personal use. When the complainant contacted the Revenue Divisional Officer they did not respond properly and when complainant filed RTI application on 23.10.2009, reply was given with irrelevant particulars. Further complainant presented various petitions before the Taluk Supply officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, but the domestic gas cylinder seized from the complainant was not returned. Thus the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to direct them to return the gas cylinder along with compensation and cost of the proceeding. The Learned District Commission after perusing the pleadings in the complaint and after hearing the complainant in person dismissed the complaint at the preliminary stage itself holding that the complaint involved disputed question of facts and law and hence the remedy for the complaint lies before the Civil Court and Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.

          Aggrieved against the same, the complainant had  preferred the present appeal.

5.Points for consideration:-

1.Whether the consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is maintainable?

2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so   to what relief the complainant is entitled?

6.Point No.1

          Heard the complainant in person. He submitted that he was a consumer under the Civil Supplies Department having  domestic gas connection  LPG obtained under Application No.A.No5746-827 section 8785 dated 25.01.1999 and had paid Rs.1000/- & Rs.160/- for obtaining gas connection & gas cylinder. His grievance was that while he was transporting the cylinder belonging to one K.Rajan in his auto to be delivered to him, he was inspected by the respondents and the gas cylinder was seized from him. Due to his inability to deliver it to the said person, he had given his own gas cylinder kept for his personal use. Then he approached the respondents with a request to supply him a domestic gas cylinder. It is seen that the domestic gas cylinder was seized as per sec 6 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 from the complainant on the ground that transporting the domestic gas cylinder by a private person is an offence under section 3( c ) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  The complainant has not filed any complaint against the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the District Revenue Officer based on the report filed by the Taluk Distribution Officer. It is clearly mentioned that if the complainant is aggrieved against that order he has  to file an appeal before the Civil Court within 30 days of the date of order. But the complainant has not preferred any appeal or suit before the appropriate Commission but had approached the Consumer Commission by way of filing Consumer Complaint.

          If the complainant was aggrieved over that order he should have approached the Civil Court for declaration that he was entitled to the domestic gas cylinder as per his service connection  by producing evidence. Even if the complainant was  aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Division Officer he could have invoked  the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court and hence approaching the Consumer Commission with a complaint is a clear case of without jurisdiction.  Determination of the right of the complainant clearly involves production of material evidences and appropriate pleadings. Hence, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission as it involves disputed question of law & facts and requires  evidence. Thus the findings of Learned District Commission is hereby confirmed.

In the result point No.1 is answered in negative against the complainant holding that the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable.

8.Point No.2:

          As we have already held that the complaint itself is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  the issue whether any deficiency in service is committed by opposite parties does not arise and hence  the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

Cmp/d/s