- (1.) ON the ground that the complainant who applied for gas connection and paid a sum of Rs.4,000/ - to the 1st opposite party and on the ground that the 1st opposite party failed to supply gas cylinder refill and thus the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not supplying the gas, the complaint has been laid for a direction to the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.4,000/ - and further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/ - as damages.
(2.) THE 1st opposite party disputed the complainant's case and stated that his agency was terminated by the 2nd opposite party and that as early as in 1996, the 1st opposite party has informed the complainant about the same and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Further the 1st opposite party contended that what was paid by the complainant was only a sum of Rs.1,250/ - towards security deposit.
(3.) THE lower Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,250/ - with interest @ 18% p. a. from 2.9.1998 till realization and pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ - for deficiency in service with a cost of Rs.500/ -. On a perusal of the materials produced by both the parties, we are of the view that the complaint as against the appellant is false and fallacious. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he paid a sum of Rs.4,000/ - to the 1st opposite party but he was issued a receipt only for a sum of Rs.1,250/ -. In the notice given, it is stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/ - for which he has been issued a receipt on 4.12.1995. The receipt is not produced. The opposite party has denied that any sum much less a sum of Rs.4,000/ - was received from the complainant. Thus, as regards the amount paid by him, the complainant has set up different versions which would only show that the complainant has not come with clean hands. That he paid only a sum of Rs.1,250/ - is the case of the opposite party which in the circumstances has to be accepted more so because the complainant says that he paid a sum of Rs.1,250/ - towards security deposit for which he was given a voucher. The 1st opposite party, the appellant herein has produced Ex. B1 to show that the agency of the 1st opposite party was terminated by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party namely the appellant herein has also sent a letter on 15.9.1996 to all his customers informing about the letter received by him under Ex. B1 from the 2nd opposite party and stating that he is no longer the agent or the dealer as the case may be of the 2nd opposite party for supply of Feena gas and, therefore, the customers are requested to contact the 2nd opposite party for their further supplies. Apparently, this letter has been received by the complainant as well. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is clear that as regards the 1st opposite party he ceased to be a dealer as early as in July, 1996. Therefore, he was not in a position to make the supply. The complainant has not chosen to contact the 2nd opposite party immediately thereafter or issue notice to him. The complainant only chose to issue notice to the 1st opposite party. There is no reason as to why he has not chosen to contract the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is clear that the 1st opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in service since his dealership has been terminated he ceased to be a dealer and, therefore, whatever contract there was between the complainant and the 1st opposite party had come to an end. Thereafter, it was only for the 2nd opposite party to make necessary arrangements to effect the supply. It is only the 2nd opposite party who is bound to refund the deposit since the security deposit was received by the 1st opposite party only for and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, in such circumstances, the order passed by the lower Forum as against the 1st opposite party cannot be maintained at all.;