DHULIA GAS AGENCY vs ANANDA ONKAR PATIL

AFTER hearing both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the Order passed by the State Commission has to be set aside and the Order passed by the District Forum should be restored.

THIS revision Petition arises out of a complaint filed before the District Forum, Dhule by the first Respondent herein praying for a direction to the Revision Petitioner herein namely M/s. Dhulia Gas Agency who was the distributor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Jalgaon for Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). The District Forum found that the Complainant was not a genuine consumer of L.P.G. and that he had obtained the gas connection from the Dealer on the basis of certain fabricated documents and not on the basis of any genuine authorisation issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. On the basis of the said finding the District Forum dismissed the complaint petition holding that the Complainant was not a ''Consumer''. On appeal the State Commission took the view that irrespect of how the 1st Respondent had come to receive supply of gas for some time he had to be regarded as a ''consumer'' for the simple reason that factually he had received gas supply for a certain period, though it may be on the basis of fabricated documents. We are totally unable to subscribe to the said view taken by the State Commission. It is not the function of the Consumer Forums to encourage persons to fabricate documents and play a fraud on the public by getting gas connections on the basis of those documents. On the other hand, Consumer Forums have a duty to put down such evil tendencies with a heavy hand in the interests of the genuine consumers. The State Commission has not stated anywhere in its Order that it did not agree with the finding of the District Forum that the Complainant did not have any legitimately granted L.P.G. connection during the short period when he had obtained supply of gas cylinders from the Dealer before the fraud was discovered.

ON the basis of the erroneous view afore said taken by the State Commission it has directed the Revision Petitioner herein to forthwith resume the supply of L.P.G. to the Complainant and has also further passed an Order that if the supply is not so resumed within a week from the date of its Order, the Revision Petitioner herein should pay compensation to the Complainant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. It has also further directed the Revision Petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages to the complainant. In our opinion these directions issued by the State Commission are totally illegal and unjustified and wholly without jurisdiction. We set aside the Order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint petition. The Revision Petitioner will get his costs from the 1st Respondent which we fix at Rs. 3,500/-.