City Gas Agencies Vs. T.J. Cherian and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in C.C.No.439/2008 order dated 18-10-2010. The appellant is the 1st opposite party dealer and the respondent is the complainant therein and respondents 2 and 3 are the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, respectively in the above case. The appellant is the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer prefers this appeal under the order of the forum below that to pay for Rs.5000/- as the compensation to the complainant along with a cost Rs.1000/- by the first opposite party. There is no liability fixed by the forum below against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties in the order.

2. In short, the complainant had availed an Indiane Gas connection at Thrissur on 29.1.2008. When the complainant was transferred to Cochin, to apply for the transfer of the said connection to the 1^st opposite party in Cochin. He approached the 1^st opposite party with the transfer voucher on 4-2-2008. This time he had to approach the first opposite party to get his connection transferred. Finally by the Intervention of the 3^rd opposite party on 22-4-2008, the connection was provided to the complainant on 23.4.2008. The delay in issue providing the gas connection was caused lot of mental agony, inconvenience and huge monitory loss to the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint before the forum below seeking direction by the 1^st opposite party complainant pay total compensation of Rs.28,000/- with cost .

3. The 1^st opposite party filed version and stated that the complainant had actually visited the 1^st opposite partys office only on 24.3.2008. The termination voucher brought by the complainant did not contain the office seal of the distributor with whom the complainant had taken his earlier connection. Thereafter, the complainant visited the first opposite party only on 2.4.2008. On that day, the subscription voucher book to be supplied by IOC was not available with the 1^st opposite party. It is must for issue of a LPG connection. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party after the office hours on 15.4.08, and they requested him to come on the next working day when he came only on 22.4.2008 and the cylinder was supplied on that day itself. The claim for compensation is imaginary and unsustainable. The 1st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint. The version of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties that the allegation raised only against the 1^st opposite party alone. The public relation officer of the 3^rd opposite party had directed the 1^st opposite party to accept the transfer voucher and provide the gas connection the 2^nd opposite and 3^rd opposite party request to dismiss the complaint as against them.

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant who was examined PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A7. On other side, the first opposite party examined as the DW1 and marked Ext. B1 to B4. There is no evidence added by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

5. The forum below heard both in detail sides and considered the evidence adduced by both parties and the Forum below taken a view that the complainant initially approached to the 1^st opposite party on 4-2-2008. Since the seal of the previous dealer was not affixed in the transfer voucher, the 1^st opposite party refused to accept the application on 12-02-2008. The complainant rectified the defect and resubmitted the application again. He approached the first opposite party on 19-4-2008. Finally on 22-04-2008 as per the direction of the 3^rd opposite party the first opposite party give the gas connection and delivered. The forum below considered the 1^st opposite partys version that the complainant who only approached to them only on 24-3-08 with proper records. Since the voucher book has not under available, the complainant was directly approached to them later. Though then he approached the 1^st opposite party about on 15-4-2008 after the office hours, they are unable to provide their legitimate connection. Finally, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 22-04-08, on the very same day the connection was granted. The forum below taken a view that there is no explanation is forthcoming on the side of the 1^st opposite party stated in their version that subscription voucher book was not available on 2-4-2008. However, during the cross-examination of the complainant of PW1, the 1^st opposite party admitted that it is not available on 23.3.08 at the time of the visit of the complainant. This contingency has not been explained as only a plain truth that “now a days cooking gas of a public utility service and nobody can survive without the same. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party for the delay in gas connection for the complainant”. On the basis of this view taken by the Forum below passed the impugned order, and this order is challenged by the appellant through this appeal.

6. On this day, this appeal came before this commission for final hearing, both counsels for the appellant and the counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are present. The 1^st respondent/complainant is absent. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the basis of the appeal memorandum is that the complainant did not substantiate evidence to prove that the 1^st opposite party taken about 85 days delay in give a connection to the gas of the complainant. In the cross examination the complainant disposed that he himself absent to approach the opposite party due to the hospitalization of his wife and he deposed that he has not remember the total days, his wife was admitted as an impatient in the hospital. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the A2 documents didnt contain the office seal of the transfer office at Thrissur. Another reason for the delay explained by the appellant/opposite parties that in shortage of subscription voucher and which did not supply by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Even though, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are parties in this case filed joint version which did not contain any explanations in this point. The complainant did not seek any claim or relief from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

7. Heard in detail. The certified copies of the depositions which provided by the counsel for the appellant and which shows that the delay in the connection of gas is due to the reasons from the part of the complainant and as well as from the part of all the opposite parties. There is no substantial evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his allegations in the complaint. He has no definite case about the loss sustained by him. The counsel for the appellant prayed for the interference of this commission in the impugned order passed by the forum below by allowing this appeal. The order passed by the forum below is not in accordance with the strict provisions of the law and evidence. It is only an emotion order. The finding of the forum below that the LPG Gas is an indefensible part of the day to day living of the people of the Kerala, etc is only opinions of the forum below. But the very same time, the forum below is a fact finding body and they cannot be taken mere emotional findings. The counsel for the appellant prays to remove this finding of the forum below from the impugned order passed by the forum below. The submission is not all acceptable. What is the harm by this finding? I concerned only the balance of the convenience of the consumer. It is seen in the deposition of the complainant that he also contributed delay from his own part. The reason of the delay in getting gas connection is also on affix the seal from the Trichur dealer. The appellant contented that this is the main reason for the delay of connection. Any way the complainant who got gas connection and then after only he approached the forum below for the compensation. He is absent in this appeal. It shows that he have no grievances at present.

I appreciated the consumer friendly attitude of the forum below. At the very same time the forum below passed the impugned order without appreciating the provisions of law and evidence. It is not legally sustainable. Immediately after the better experience sustained by the complainant he knocked the door of the Consumer Forum. After this he is didnt give so much seriousness in this matter. To the notice of this commission also the complainant already ignored. He is absent and representations for him.

8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and set-aside the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are direct to suffer their own respective dhast. The points of the appeal answered accordingly.

The appellant allowed to withdraw the amount deposited before the commission at time of filing the appeal. He can file any necessary petitions to get back this amount from the commission.