Appeal No.1966/05

Ranthambhor Gas Service V. Dwarka Prasad


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.Sikandar Punjabi-Member


Shri Virendra Agarwal,counsel for the appellant

Shri Purushottam Sharma,counsel for the respondent


Date of judgement : 14.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


This appeal has been filed by the appellant gas service which was op before the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur against the order dated 24.10.05 passed by the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur in complaint no.111/05,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant was directed to supply a gas cylinder and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.


It may be stated here in short that the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant gas service before the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur on 16.7.05 interalia stating that he had got a LPG gas connection from the appellant bearing consumer no.609536 for which he had paid a sum of Rs.1400/- for getting two cylinders and one regulator. The case of the complainant respondent was that though the amount for two cylinders was charged, but only one cylinder was supplied and for that the complaint was filed.


2


A reply was filed by the appellant before the District Forum on 25.8.05 interalia stating it was wrong to say that only one cylinder was issued but two cylinders had already been issued and delivered,therefore,complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties had come to the conclusion that the signatures were got forged by the appellant in respect of issuing second cylinder and thereafter the impugned order was passed.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant.


In this appeal,the only contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings recorded by the District Forum by which it was held that signatures of the complainant respondent were made forged,be quashed as there is ample evidence on record to show that the disputed signatures were the signatures of the complainant respondent and to that extent,the appeal be allowed.


The learned counsel for the complainant respondent has no objection, provided the impugned order is upheld.


In our considered opinion,looking to all facts and circumstances that findings by which it was held that the appellant had made forged signatures of the complainant respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside, but the impugned order deserves to be maintained so far as the passing of the final order is concerned.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. However that part of the order by the it was held that the appellant had made forged signatures of the complainant respondent is

3


quashed and set aside. The appellant is further directed to issue second cylinder if not supplied by the appellant so far,within two months from today to the complainant respondent. Further for that if any permission is to be taken by the appellant from the petroleum authorities,the appellant is free to take that permission, but the compliance of the impugned order dated 24.10.05 has to be made within two months from today.




Member President