The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the dealer under the Indian Oil Corporation Act to supply gas to bona fide consumers and act on the instructions of the Indian Oil Corporation.

ORDER

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member - This revision petition has been filed by Dr. Ram Naresh Sinha, Proprietor of M/s. Jyoti Kalash (hereinafter referred as the Petitioner ) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission") in which Shri Amitabh Kumar who was the original complainant before the District Forum, was the Respondent.

2. The facts of the case, according to the Respondent, are that he is a consumer of Indian Oil Corporation for L.P. Gas with JT No. 6946 and Subscriber No. 2246. On 16.2.1991 the said cooking gas connection of the Respondent which was with M/s. S.K. Trading Co., Buan Marg, Patna, came on transfer to M/s. Jyoti Kalash, Gaighat Gulzarbagh, Patna of which the Petitioner was the proprietor. On 16.8.1991 Respondent applied for a second gas cylinder to M/s. Jyoti Kalash as per the rules of the Indian Oil Corporation. The Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation also wrote a letter dated 28.9.1993 to the Petitioner authorizing the second gas cylinder. However, instead of supplying the second cylinder, Petitioner stopped the supply of even the first gas cylinder as a result of which since 1993 there has been no gas supply to the Respondent from the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by this arbitrary and unfair action of the Petitioner, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to release the gas connection and pay the Respondent Rs. 75,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,500 as litigation cost.

3. Petitioner has denied the above contentions and stated that he was justified in stopping supply of the gas connection because he came to know through reliable sources that the Respondent was a fictitious consumer and he had obtained the T.T.V. from the Indian Oil Corporation by manipulation. Petitioner, therefore, sought relevant information vide letter dated 31.8.1993 from the Respondent which included information as to what was his age, how he initially got the first cylinder, what was his old address, etc. to which the Respondent did not reply. Petitioner further stated that one Ashok Kumar of Anand Bhawan Awas Grih, Fraser Road, Patna had written to the Indian Oil Corporation as well as to Petitioner that he was the bona fide consumer of the said gas connection but unfortunately his papers had got lost which have been mischievously used by someone else to get the connection transferred from M/s. S.K Trading Co. to M/s. Jyoti Kalash. Shri Ashok Kumar also requested the Manager of M/s. Jyoti Kalash to take appropriate action against the fictitious consumer and intimate the action taken. Keeping in view these facts. Petitioner stated that there was no deficiency in service and he had rightly stopped the supply of gas cylinder to the Respondent for the aforesaid reasons.

4. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that no credible evidence including an affidavit was produced by the Petitioner in support of his contentions and directed the Petitioner to issue the second gas cylinder within one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed with the following observations:

"From a perusal of Annexure 1, TSB, which was issued by S.K. Trading, Budha Marg, Patna, it is clear that TTV Number is written as 117834 and it was prepared on 14.2.1991 and customer's name has been given as A. Kumar of Danka Imli, Laddu Akhara, Patna-7 which is the address of respondent-complainant given in this appeal and the TVS number is signed by Amitabh Kumar in the column of signature of customer. Therefore, he claim of appellant has got no leg to stand. The learned Forum has rightly observed that the said Ashok Kumar or Amit Kumar have not filed any affidavit in support of the appellant claim referr