SWASTIK GAS DISTRIBUTORS vs GOPAL MAHAWAR

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 6th December, 1990 passed by the District Forum, Santhal Parganas (Dumka) in consumer case No. 2 of 1990 directing the appellant who was opposite party before the District Forum and hereinafter called the opposite party to treat the respondent who was complainant before the District Forum and here-in after called the complainant as having been registered for supply of cooking gas with effect from 18.8.89 and to pay to the complainant a token compensation of Rs. 500/- for putting the complainant under stress and strain for ten months for getting his name registered for supply of L.P.G. cylinder.

THE case of the complainant against the opposite party was that on 18.8.89 he approached the opposite party who is a distributor of L.P.G. cylinder, at Sahebganj for registering his application for supply of L.P.G. cylinder and an employee of the opposite party signed the ration card which was produced before him by the complainant on that date but later on he cut the same; that though the complainant visited the opposite party several dates but his application for supply of cooking gas could be registered by the opposite party on 18.6.90 under the direction of the District Supply Officer, Sahebganj and that on that date a registration voucher was issued to him ten months from the date he had approached the O.P. for the first time for the same. The opposite party denied the allegations made by the complainant against him. The case of the opposite party was that the complainant for the first time approached him through the District Supply Officer and his application for supply of L.P.G. cylinder was registered.

The order of the District Forum has been assailed on behalf of the appellant challenging the maintainability of the case under the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after called the Act). It has, been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer under Sub-section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence his case before the District Forum was not maintainable. This point was also taken on behalf of the opposite party before the District Forum and the District Forum has held that the complainant is a consumer within the Act. The District Forum has held that Sec. 2(l)(d)(i) provides that consumer also means "a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user and that as the name of the complainant has been registered by the opposite party for supply of cooking gas the complainant became consumer under the system of deferred payment."

ADMITTEDLY the L.P.G. cylinder had not been supplied to the complainant. Therefore, the question of buying any goods or having any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment as contemplated by Section 2(1)(d) of the Act does not arise and hence the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Act. Hence the case by the complainant was not maintainable. This question was raised in a similar case before this Commission in Appeal No. 35 of 1990 - M/s. Jehanabad Gas Agencies, Jehanabad v. Birendra Pd. Singh & Others, decided on 7th day of October, 1991, and it has been held that an applicant for supply of LPG whose application has been registered as such is not a consumer under the Act. Moreover, the District Forum has directed the appellant (the opposite party) to treat the com plainant as having been registered for supply of cooking gas with effect from 18.8.89. No such order can be passed u/Sec. 14 of the Act. We are buttressed in our view by the principles laid down by the National Commission in A.P. State Electricity Board and Others v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association (1991 Consumer Cases 266). It has been held by the National Commission in this case that the only reliefs which any consumer forum can grant to a complainant are those set out in Section 14 of the Act and there is no power vested in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to issue a direction to a person who renders any service to do or desist from doing any thing. For this reason also the order passed by the District Forum is bad and illegal.

IN the above circumstances the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. IN the result we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.