UPBHOKTA SANRAKSHAN PARISHAD vs GHARAUNDA GAS SERVICE

THIS appeal seeks to assail the order of the District Forum, Karnal partly allowing the appellant''s Complaint. The extreme brevity of the order under appeal warrants its notice in extenso : (i) "During the course of hearing of this Complaint made by the consumer, a duly registered consumer society of L.P. Cooking Gas for the redressal of his grievance regarding non-supply/delayed delivery of a refill, it was assured by Unauthorized dealer, arrayed as ''opposite party'', that he would maintain regular supply of refill on deposit of empty cylinder issued to the consumer for and on behalf of the Company and not on the basis of duplicate cylinder having been manufactured un-authorisedly. That proposition having been accepted by the consumer, the further discussion is called for. The other relief for the award of damages was also not pressed for, and rightly because the same was quite mis-conceived and ill-founded. (ii) In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and the ''opposite party'' is directed to arrange un-interrupted supply of refills of Cooking Gas within reasonable time on production of genuine empty cylinders."

MR. M.K. Aggarwal, the authorized representative of the appellant raised a solitary argument. The only submission was that the relief for the award of damages was infact pressed before the District Forum and it had wrongly recorded to the contrary in the order aforesaid. On this tenuous premise a compensation of Rs. 2000/- for the mental agony suffered by the appellant was claimed alongwith litigation expenses. The aforesaid submission has to be only noticed and rejected. Mr. Yogesh Kumar on behalf of the respondent has strongly controverted the factual allegations sought to be raised by the appellant. It was his firm stand that infact after the generous offer made by the respondent before the District Forum, no further relief or damages was at all claimed.

Apart from the above, the matter is concluded against the appellant both on principle and precedent. The conclusive answer to the appellant''s only submission is provided by I (1993) CPJ 21 ''Telecom District Manager v. M/s. Modi Steels Ltd.'' as under : " It is settled principle of law that if some thing is said or admitted before a Court by a party or by his Counsel and it is mentioned in the judgment that has to be taken as the last word on the subject and such statement cannot be allowed to be contradicted, by statement at the Bar or by affidavit or by any other evidence subsequently."

IN view of the above, it is somewhat patent that this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.