K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Manager, Rajani Gas Agencies and Others

K. Radhakrishnan vs Manager, Rajani Gas Agencies and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1147642

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1147642
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member
Decided On: Apr 30, 2014
Case Number: F.A.No. 1074 of 2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Radhakrishnan

Respondent

Manager, Rajani Gas Agencies and Others

Excerpt

.....enhance the compensation the order of the district forum in cc. no.83/2008 dt.30.09.2010. this appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the district forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) a.k. annamalai, judicial member 1. the unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for directions to supply of refill gas cylinder in time and to pay rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and rs.3,000/- as costs. 3. the district forum after considering both sides materials, dismissed the complaint by finding that the complainant failed to prove the negligence or deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. 4. aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal contending the district forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the materials on the side of complainant. 5. we have heard both sides arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard. even though, the complainant contended that, the 1st opposite party being the supplier of the gas cylinder to him as the customer regularly, he has not produced any materials to show to prove that the 1st opposite party insisted for the registration of the gas cylinder only after 21 days of previous registration and for such condition even as per the document filed by the complainant availed under the rti act from the 2nd opposite party stated that there was no such restriction in supplying the gas cylinder as per ex.a1 details and however it is stated that the supply depends upon availability of the cylinder number of bookings pending to be attended / supplied and past consumption of the customer and thereby it is clear that the complainant has not come forward to prove specifically on which dates he had registered for.....

Full Judgment

(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modify and enhance the compensation the order of the District Forum in CC. No.83/2008 dt.30.09.2010.

This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:)

A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member

1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for directions to supply of refill gas cylinder in time and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- as costs.

3. The District Forum after considering both sides materials, dismissed the complaint by finding that the complainant failed to prove the negligence or deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal contending the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the materials on the side of complainant.

5. We have heard both sides arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard. Even though, the complainant contended that, the 1^st opposite party being the supplier of the gas cylinder to him as the customer regularly, he has not produced any materials to show to prove that the 1^st opposite party insisted for the registration of the gas cylinder only after 21 days of previous registration and for such condition even as per the document filed by the complainant availed under the RTI Act from the 2^nd opposite party stated that there was no such restriction in supplying the gas cylinder as per Ex.A1 details and however it is stated that the supply depends upon availability of the cylinder number of bookings pending to be attended / supplied and past consumption of the customer and thereby it is clear that the complainant has not come forward to prove specifically on which dates he had registered for supplies of cylinder and on which date those were rejected / registered and the duration between the 2 registrations to prove that the dates beyond 21 days or before 21 days. If the registration is alleged to have been refused etc., In these circumstances, on perusal of District Forum order the District Forum has considered all the relevant materials after analyzing the same came to proper conclusion by dismissing the complaint with which findings we find no error or infirmity to interfere with the same. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid on merits and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North), in C.C.No.83/2008 dated 30.09.2010.

No order as to costs in this appeal.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties K. Radhakrishnan vs Manager, Rajani Gas Agencies and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamal...