Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/425

MANI PROPRIETOR SOORAJ GAS INDANE DISTRIBUTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD RAPHEL - Opp.Party(s)

SYLVESTER RAPHEL

03 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 425/16

JUDGMENT DATED : 03.06.2019

 

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.421/2015

on the file of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN               : PRESIDENT

 

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SRI.RANJIT.R                                   : MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANT

 

Mani , Proprietor, Sooraj Gas Indane Distributor, 12/403A, Nadathara, Thrissur

 

                    (BY Adv.Sri.Sylvester Raphael)

 

                            VS

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Vinod Raphael, Nellikandan House, Mukkatukkara.P.O, Snehapalam Bus Stop, Near Cown

 

2. The Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin

 

                        (R1  by Adv.Sri.Unnikrishnan)

                        (R2 by Adv.Sri.M.Nizamudeen)

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

             The first opposite party in CC.No.421/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which the appellant along with the second opposite party were directed to provide gas cylinders within 21 days from the date of booking and also to provide 21 cylinders for an year to the complainant without any fault. The appellant and second opposite party were directed to pay Rs 5000/- each as compensation and cost to the complainant. 

 

                2.     The case of the complainant is that he is having a gas connection of the opposite parties and they used to provide refills with huge delay. The cylinder booked on 20.03.2015 was provided by the opposite parties on 14.04.2015, that too only after issuing notice earlier and the gas cylinder booked on 21.05.2015 was provided only on 20.03.2015. There is a provision to provide 12 cylinders every year to the consumers. The opposite parties used to cause huge delay in providing the refills with an ulterior in not to provide 12 cylinders to the consumers. The opposite parties are liable to provide refills within 21 days from the date of booking as per the prevailing provisions. Moreover, the first opposite party used to distribute refills without following the priority list. The second opposite party is to look after and control the acts of the opposite party but they commit utter irresponsibility in the administration of their duties which caused the first opposite party to commit such deficiency in service towards the consumers including the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the complaint.

 

                3.     On receiving the complainant notice was issued to the opposite parties from the district forum and they appeared through the counsel. Even though several opportunities were given to the opposite parties, they did not file version and they have not produced any documents. Subsequently there was no representation for the opposite parties. Hence the case was posted for complainant’s evidence.

 

                4.     The complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P4 series were marked. Based on the evidence adduced by the complainant the district forum has passed the impugned order.

 

                5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the first opposite party has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to set aside the order passed by the lower forum and to give an opportunity to him to present his defense and for that matter to remand the case to the district forum.

                6. The respondents appeared through counsel.

                7.    Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                8.     It is stated by the appellant that even though he engaged an Advocate there was failure on the part of his Advocate to file version or produce documentary evidence or put forward his case. It is the case of the appellant that when his Advocate failed to represent him the district forum ought to have issued notice to him. The counsel for the appellant submitted that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to file version and to adduce evidence and for that purpose the order passed by the district forum may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the district forum for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellant to file version and to adduce evidence. The counsel for the first respondent / complainant opposed the prayer of the appellant and he submitted that there was willful default on the part of the appellant / first opposite party and even though several opportunities were given to him he did not file version. On a perusal of the records of the district forum it is seen that on receipt of the notice issued from the district forum the appellant / first respondent appeared through an Advocate and even though several opportunities were given to him, he did not file version and subsequently there was no representation for him. It is the case of the appellant that his Advocate failed to file version and produce documentary evidence. That is not a ground to set aside the order passed by the district forum and to remand the matter for fresh disposal. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the district forum ought to have issued notice to the appellant when his Advocate failed to appear and file version. Admittedly the district forum had issued notice on the complainant to the appellant / first opposite party and he appeared through counsel. If he failed to appear and file version subsequently, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the appellant / opposite party and issuance of such a notice is not contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. So there is no basis for the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the district forum ought to have issued notice to the appellant when there was failure on the part of his advocate to file version or to make representation for him before the district forum. Perusing the records and also the Order passed by the district forum we find that there is no sufficient ground / reason to allow the prayer of the appellant to set aside the Order passed by the district forum and remand the matter to the forum for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellant / opposite party to file version and adduce evidence. The appeal is without merit and hence to be dismissed.

                        In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

             Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

             The first respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs 2500/-, the amount deposited by the appellant, at the time of filing of appeal, on proper application to be adjusted / credited towards the amount ordered as compensation and cost by the District forum.

 

                                JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 425/16

JUDGMENT DATED : 03.06.2019