INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. V RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin dated 4.2.93 in O. P.7/92. The first Opp. Party is the appellant.

(2.) The complainant was a consumer who was getting gas connection from M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service who were the authorized agents of the first Opp. Party. The agency in favour of M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service was cancelled and transferred to M/s. Arasan Fuel Service. At that time it was found that the deposit amounts made by the complainant and others were not credited to the account of the first Opp. Party. These consumers were called upon to regularise the membership by payment of full deposit. It is alleged by the complainant that he offered to pay the amount, but it was refused. Subsequently, the first Opp. Party issued a notice calling upon the complainant to surrender the cylinder and accessories to their new agent, the second Opp. Party. Hence this complaint for directing the first Opp. Party to regularise the complainant's consumership by accepting fresh deposit.

(3.) The Opp. Parties 1 and 2 filed a joint counter. It is admitted that M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service who originally agent of the first Opp. Party. It is not known whether the complainant paid the deposit to M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service as alleged by him. The agency in favour of M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service was cancelled and transferred to M/s. Arasan Fuel Service. At that time it was found that the deposits of the complainant and many other consumers had not been credited in the books of M/s. Shanmugam Gas Service and no subscription voucher has been issued to them. The first Opp. Party however offered to regularise the membership of the complainant and other by paying full deposit of Rs.350/-. Some of those consumers made the deposit except the complainant and a few persons. They were therefore called upon to surrender the gas cylinders. Meanwhile a few persons similarly placed who did not have the subscription vouchers filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff, Tuticorin, in a representative capacity in O. S.369/ 80 claiming that they were not liable to make any deposit. The suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred there against in A. S.44/87 on the file of the Sub Court was also dismissed. The complainant is bound by that decision and is not entitled to claim any relief or filed this complaint.