P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE appeal was already dismissed against Rule 3 and Rule 4 as proof of service of notice on them was not filed. So also no proof of service on the second respondent is filed.
(2.) HENCE the appeal against 2nd respondent is also dismissed.
(3.) THE first opposite party in C.D. No. 90/97 on the file of District Forum, Warangal is the appellant. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party is a firm dealing in Gas. The complainant made an application for dealership by making deposit of Rs. 5,000/ -. On the assurance given by the 1st opposite party, complainant made all arrangements for establishment of the business by printing bill books, receipt books etc. But the 1st opposite party failed to supply gas. Hence he approached the District Forum. The District Forum found that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - and hence directed the opposite parties refund of the said amount with interest at 18 per cent. It also directed opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/ - towards purchase of furniture, stationery etc. The opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000/ - towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 1,000/ - with interest at 18 per cent. Hence the appeal.;