CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2008 Date of filing : 18/09/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 250 OF 2008 Date of order : 26/05/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI



Mr.Vishwanath Gangadhar Patankar

R/o. Suvidha Complex, Opp. R.M.

High School, Brahmanpuri Miraj,

Miraj – 416 410. … Appellant/org. complainant

V/s.

1. Avadhoot Gas Agency

Guruwar Peth

Miraj – 416 410.

2. District Collector Sangli

Collector Office, Rajwada,

Sangli – 416 416. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.



AND



FIRST APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2008 Date of filing : 18/09/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 250 OF 2008 Date of order : 26/05/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI

@ MISC. APPL. NOS. 1770 & 1771 OF 2008



Avadhoot Gas Agency

Guruwar Peth

Miraj – 416 410. … Appellant/org. O.P.No.1

V/s.

1. Mr.Vishwanath Gangadhar Patankar

R/o. Suvidha Complex, Opp. R.M.

High School, Brahmanpuri Miraj,

Miraj – 416 410. … Respondent/org. complainant

2. The Collector, Sangli

Collector Office, Rajwada,

Sangli – 416 416. … Respondent/org. O.P.No.2

Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.Madhav Y. Tamhankar, Advocate for org. complainant.

Ms.Deepa Sawant, Advocate for O.P.No.1.

Mr.G.K. Sable, employee of collector office/org. O.P.No.2.

- : ORDER :-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

These two appeals are directed against the impugned order/award dated 16/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.250/2008 Vishwanath G. Patankar V/s. Avdhoot Gas Agency and another by District Consumer Forum Sangli (in short ‘Forum below’).

Org. complainant-Vishwanath G. Patankar (appellant in A-1256/2008 and respondent No.1 in Appeal No.1257/2008 is a consumer of B.P.C.L. supplying L.P.Gas and his consumer Number is 17358. Org. O.P.No.1-Avdhoot Gas Agency (appellant in Appeal No.1257/2008 and respondent No.1 in Appeal No.1256/2008) is one of the dealer to supply LPG gas of B.P.C.L. O.P.No.2-Collector, Sangli (respondent No.2 in both the appeals) is the revenue head and controlling authority as per Essential Commodities Act 1955, L.P.G. [Regulation Supply & Distribution] Order 2000 for revenue district Sangli, Maharashtra State. It is the grievance of complainant-Vishwanath Patankar that O.P.No.1-Avdhoot Gas Agency do not register request for new cylinder unless 21 days expired from the date of last supply of cylinder. This is according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and practicing unfair trade practice.

As far as O.P.No.2/Collector, Sangli is concerned, it is the grievance of complainant that said authority failed to take action against O.P.No.1 when above referred fact was brought to his notice and on the contrary, O.P.No.2 supported action of O.P.No.1 for not registering request for new gas cylinder in the above referred circumstances. Therefore, consumer complaint is filed for relief to give directions not to refuse request for registration of new gas cylinder unless 21 days period is expired, supra; to supply new gas cylinder within 48 hours as per Adarsh Gas Pranali (Pranali in short); to give direction to O.P.No.2 to file a criminal complaint against O.P.No.1; to give direction to O.P.No.2-Collector to take action against all the Gas Supply Agencies, who failed to follow Pranali; and further claimed Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards mental torture from each of the O.Ps.

Forum below partly allowed the complaint held deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1/Avdhoot Gas Agency and directed the Avdhoot Gas Agency to supply new cylinder within 48 hours and also further directed Avdhoot Gas Agency not to refuse request for new cylinder unless period of 21 days is expired. Complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- by O.P.No.1. Feeling aggrieved thereby O.P.No.1/Avdhoot Gas Agency filed Appeal bearing No.1257/2008. At the same time, not satisfied with the impugned order, complainant filed Appeal No.1256/2008 particularly to seek relief against O.P.No.2/Collector, Sangli.

We heard at length Mr.Madhav Y. Tamhankar, Advocate for appellant/org. complainant in Appeal No.1256/2008, Ms.Deepa Sawant, Advocate for appellant/O.P.No.1 in Appeal No.1257/2008 and Mr.G.K. Sable, employee of collector office/org. O.P.No.2-respondent No.2 in both appeals.

While assuming any jurisdiction to pass an order/award, Forum below was expected to be aware of its own jurisdiction within Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity). It cannot grant any relief beyond the empowerment spelled out under Section 14 of the Act. However, direction such as to improve efficiency in service e.g. to supply cylinder within 48 hours from the registration of new cylinder, simply, cannot be given as held by the National Commission in the matter of Kongra Ananth Ram V/s. Telecom District Manager, 1986-94 Consumer 274 (NC&SC). To give any direction to Statutory Authority like O.P.No.2-Collector to take particular action under Essential Commodities Act 1955, L.P.G. (Regulation Supply & Distribution) Order 2000 is also not contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. Further, due to absence of element of ‘service’ as contemplated under the Act, complainant is not a consumer in relation to O.P.No.2-Collector. Therefore, Forum below rightly did not give any direction against O.P.No.2-Collector, Sangli, the way complainant desired and spelled out in Appeal No.1256/2008. Said appeal is devoid of any substance, nay is one of the instance as to how the provisions of the Act are misused.

As far as directions given under the impugned award against Avdhoot Gas Agency are concerned, they also cannot stand in the eyes of law for the reasons stated earlier. Further, what Gas Agency was following were the directions given by the controlling authority, namely, Collector and District Magistrate of Sangli under the Essential Commodities Act 1955, L.P.G. (Regulation Supply & Distribution) Order 2000. ‘Pranali’ offers guidelines and does not imbibe any element amounting to actionable service deficiency of which any consumer complaint could be filed. There is absolutely no question of following any unfair trade practice. Reasoning given by the Forum below cannot stand in the eyes of law. Moral judgements have no place in the system of law. Under the circumstances, we find the impugned order/award is liable to be set aside.

For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal No.1256/2008 stands dismissed with costs viz. appellant/org. complainant to bear his own cost and pay Rs.1,000/- as cost to each one of respondent No.1/Avdhoot Gas Agency and respondent No.2/Collector, Sangli.

2. Appeal No.1257/2008 stands allowed. Impugned order/award dated 16/08/2008 stands set aside. In turn the complaint stands dismissed.

3. In Appeal No.1257/2008, respondent No.1/org. complainant to bear his own cost and pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to appellant/O.P.No.1-Avdhoot Gas Agency. Respondent No.2/Collector, Sangli shall bear its own cost.

4. Misc. Appl. Nos.1770 & 1771/2008 stand disposed of as infructuous.

5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member