SINTHEE GAS SERVICE vs BHUNATH PAUL

THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Calcutta District Forum on 18.3.93.

THE fact of the case is that the complainant/Respondent hereof on his application got a L.P.G. Gas connection on 17.3.92 after five years of waiting and accordingly when on 28.3.92 he had been to the concerned LPG dealer under the name and style Sinthee Gas Service, the later compelled him to buy a Gas Stove at a more higher price than which is prevailing in market and for that the original case from which this appeal crepped in was filed before the Ld. CDF wherein it was decided on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant, that the allegation made by him are true and correct and accordingly the present Appellant/ O.P. was directed to refund Rs. 600/- with interest mentioned therein to the former. It is against that order, the present appeal has been preferred. The main contentions of the Appellant/ O.P. in his memo of appeal is that the impugned order of the lower Forum is liable to be set aside on the grounds that though for absence of the Respondent/complainant in the CDF at the time of hearing on two consecutive dates his case was dismissed for default yet the same was restored suo moto by the lower Forum without having any petition containing prayer to that effect and that also behind the O.Ps. back, without serving any notice on him and without giving any opportunity to him of being heard revishing the established principles of Natural Justice. His further grounds of attack is that impugned order was also passed without perusing and considering the price list of the Gas Stove in question.

The Respondent/complainant has contested the appeal by filing a written objection contending inter alia that on the very date of dismissal of his case before the Ld. CDF, on oral application of his Ld. Lawyer for restoration of the case a date was fixed for hearing the matter of restoration and he duly communicated the date of hearing to the O.P./Appellant, but the later failed to appear on that date of hearing This Respondent has denied the other material averments of the memo of appeal and has prayed dismissal of the same.

NOW, the point to be considered in this appeal is as to whether or not the order impugned suffers from any illegality? DECISION After a careful perusal of the material on record it appears that the present Appellant sworn in an affidavit (sought to be sworn in under direction of this Commission dated 8.4.93, though no such direction appears from the order of that date) in this appeal within four corners of which it is not seen that the Appellant has stated and affirm therein the fact of his submitting the price list of the Gas Stove and also the fact that the date of hearing of restoration matter was not communicated to him, as alleged by the Complainant Respondent. Only from paragraph (5) of that affidavit it is seen that the Appellant has stated therein that neither he nor any person on behalf of Sinthee Gas Service appeared before the CDF on 21.12.92 after dismissal of the CDF Case No. 559/92. The appellant has also failed to establish his case in the appeal otherwise.

HENCE, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings made by the Ld. Lower Forum and that findings and decisions are hereby affirmed. The appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 200/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. Appeal dismissed with cost.