At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Himanshu Chaubey, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Rekha Gas Agency, against the order dated 26.4.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No. 2335 of 2016.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/complainant had gone to the petitioner for booking of the cooking gas cylinder and the petitioner insisted on providing mobile phone number. As the complainant could not provide the mobile number booking was not made. The complainant then got a reply under RTI from BPCL that providing the mobile phone number was not mandatory. Based on this the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No. 79 of 2015 before the District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The complaint was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2016 of the District Forum and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 15,000 for compensation and Rs. 10,000 as cost.
3. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No. 2335 of 2016 before the State Commission, which was partly allowed and the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the effect that in total the petitioner was required to pay only Rs. 15,000 to the complainant.
4. Now the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned Counsel mentioned that he had received instructions from BPCL to insist on mobile phone number of the customers so that the convenient mobile booking could be pressed in operation. The learned Counsel further stated that he has a letter of BPCL wherein it has been asked that mobile phone number of the customers should be taken and booking should only be made through mobile booking system. It was also submitted that petitioner is only a dealer of BPCL and petitioner is duty bound to follow the order sent by the BPCL. Hence, both the Fora below have wrongly fastened deficiency on the part of the petitioner.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. It was asked from the learned Counsel whether the order of the BPCL was placed before the Fora below, the learned Counsel replied that he had procured this order only recently. Here it is important to note that under a reply to the RTI question, the BPCL had informed to the complainant that mobile phone number was not mandatory for booking the gas cylinder. Every customer of the cooking gas is not supposed to have a mobile phone and logically also possession of the mobile phone cannot be made mandatory for booking of a cylinder. In such situation, both the Fora below have rightly fastened deficiency and liability on the petitioner. As both the Fora below have given concurrent finding of facts, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Others v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Others, III (2016) CPJ 27 (SC)=VI (2016) SLT 86=(2016) 8 SCC 286, wherein the following has been observed:
“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”
7. The petitioner did not file any order of the BPCL before the Fora below and the same cannot be allowed to be filed at the stage of revision petition. The purpose of the revision petition is only to see whether any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the Fora below. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter, the facts cannot be reasses
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sed by this Commission when the concurrent finding of fact has been given by the Fora below. 8. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 26.4.2017 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, Revision Petition No. 3138 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision Petition dismissed.