CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

MANAGER, RAMYA GAS AGENCIES vs M.K.MANIYAN ACHARY

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 6 December 1993 · Citation: 1994 3 CPJ 143

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K.Shamsuddin , C.G.Sethu Lakshmi , K.Balakrishnan Nair J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam. The first Opposite Party is the appellant.

2.

THE complainant booked for LPG new connection with first Opposite Party during 1984-85 and Registration No.RGAWL/6259 was allotted to the complainant. However till the filing of the complaint no connection was given. On enquiry the complainant was told that the first Opposite Party had sent an intimation on 7.6.1989 for taking connection and since the complainant did not turn up, the connection was not released in the next turn. No intimation was received by the complainant according to the complaint. THE complainant made a representation to the second Opposite Party without any success. It is in these circumstances, the complaint was filed praying release of LPG connection to the complainant. The first Opposite Party in their objection contented that the complainant was given intimation under certificate of posting to avail connection on 7.6.89 and the complainant failed to turn up and now the Opposite Party exceeded its limit and connection could not be given without authorisation of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite party did not file any objection and also did not contest the matter. The District Forum found that there is no proof that intimation was received by the complainant and in the circumstances a direction was given to the first Opposite Party to consider the complainant''s application as the first priority. Aggrieved by the said order, the first Opposite Party has filed this complaint.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that without the authority and sanction of the 2nd Opposite Party no connection could be given and there is no direction in the order against the 2nd Opposite Party and, therefore, the order is unsustainable.

3.

WE are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The order is passed with both Opposite Parties on the party array and the order is binding as well on the 2nd Opposite Party. In the circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. _________________