ANAMIKA INDANE vs AWADH BIHARI PANDEY

THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 6.9.91 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 269 of 90 by which this appellant had been directed to give LPG connection to the respondent No. 1 within a month of the order and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the respondent No. 1 who was complainant there due to the negligence on the part of the Opp. Party before the District Forum who is appellant before this Commission. It may be mentioned that against that order Appeal No. 101 of 91 was filed by one M/s. Rashmi Rathi Enterprises who was O.P. No. 3 before the District Forum which has been disposed of by this Commission vide order dated 16.3.93 passed in that appeal on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the appellant and the consumer complainant-respondent that the consumer has been supplied the LPG connection. On the basis of the submission made on behalf of the parties that appeal No. 101 of 91 was disposed of on the ground that now the appeal has become infructuous.

BUT the complainant-respondent, however, opposed the disposal of this appeal No. 91 of 91 on the same ground stating that though he had already been given LPG connection, he is entitled to get the compensation from the appellant because it was due to negligence on the part of this appellant that there was delay in supply of LPG connection to him and he was harassed on that account. We have perused the record of the District Forum and we find that the consumer dispute has been decided only on the basis of allegations and counter allegations made by the parties thereto and the allegation made by the complainant has been accepted, though there is no material to support the same. There is no affidavit or oral evidence of the witnesses on that point.

Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act specifically lays down that the consumer disputes are, to be settled on the basis of evidence. There is no evidence to indicate that it was due to negligence on the part of this appellant that there was delay in the supply of L.P.G. connection to the consumer-respondent.

HENCE the order of the District Forum for the payment of compensation that ground by the appellant to the respondent can not be sustained. HENCE this appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum for the payment of the compensation by this appellant is hereby set aside. There is no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.