Govind Prasad vs N.D.Gas Services

PETITIONER, who is the complainant, is present in person and the respondent is present alongwith his counsel Mr. Vijay Mishra, Advocate.

WE have heard the parties. It is the case of the complainant/petitioner that he had booked replacement of his gas cylinder with the N. D. Gas Service on 10.03.2008 but he was not able to get the booking number. The grievance of the complainant/petitioner is that neither the order for booking of gas was accepted on telephone nor his request was acceded to when he approached the gas agency in person. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint with the District Forum, which vide its order dated 4.5.2010 dismissed the complaint. The District Forum in its order has observed that the complainant could not provide proof of his booking the gas with the opposite party/gas agency on 10.03.2008. Besides this, it was also noted by the District Forum that since the opposite party-Gas Agency is the dealer of Indane Gas, the Indian Oil Corporation should also have been joined as a party because every gas supply voucher contains indane emergency number and the gas agency is subject to the regulations for distribution of gas as laid down by the Indian Oil Corporation through different gas agencies. On the matter being carried out to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in appeal by the complainant, the State Commission too did not find any merit in the complaint and hence dismissed the appeal. Thus, there is concurrent dismissal of the complaint by both the fora below based on finding of facts. While dismissing the appeal of the complainant, the State Commission has observed as under:- The gas agency pleaded in its written statement that the complainant booked for replacement of his gas cylinder on 22.02.2008 and the cylinder was supplied on that very date. There is not an iota of evidence regarding the complainants order for booking of gas cylinder on 10.03.2008. He could not even produce the computerized telephone chart with a view to indicate that he had given a telephone call to the gas agency. If he found some faults with the officials of the gas agency he could have lodged a complaint to the higher authorities of the Indian Oil Co. and it is always open to the consumers to contact Indane Emergency No. 2992929 for making any complaint under circumstances disclosed by the complainant. He would have sent a notice subsequent to the incident but he has not sent any request for booking of his gas cylinder by way of a registered letter. The complainant perhaps wanted to dictate the terms which might have been resented by the officials of the gas agency. The bonafide of the officials of the gas agency in complying with the order of the complainant is evident from the fact that he had booked for replacement of gas cylinder on February 22, 2008 i.e. barely 18 days before the date of alleged booking on 10.03.2008, and the cylinder was supplied on that very date. Had there been some mischief or malafide on the part of the officials of the gas agency, they would not have honoured the complainants order of February 22, 2008 or might have also caused delay or some hurdle or the other. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the decisive opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of merit.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission in its impugned order. After hearing the parties, we do not find any other legal issue involved in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason which would call for our interference with the concurrent orders of fora below while exercising our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as costs.