Allowed

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, v. The Executive Director

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WP/13117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a penalty imposed on the petitioner for poor customer service regarding undelivered LPG cylinders during the COVID-19 lockdown, noting that complaints were withdrawn and public health took precedence.

What did the court decide?

The penalty of Rs.46,615.20/- imposed vide the order dated 10.08.2020 is set aside; the writ petition is disposed of.

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, Vs The Executive Director — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

W.P.No.13117 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.16243 of 2020

¶7

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, 25, Thiruvenkadam Street, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600028. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034. 2.The Deputy General Manager (LPG Sales), 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Respondents

¶8

1/6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

¶11

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, to calling for the records culminating in the order dated 10.08.2020, bearing Ref.No.TNLS/328, passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 09.06.2020 bearing Ref:CHAO/561 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan Standing Counsel for M/s.Ramasumbramaniam and Associates

¶13

For Respondents : M/s.M.Vijayamehanath for AAV Partners

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein was slapped with a penalty of Rs.46,615.20/- for poor servicing of its customers. The allegation was that during Corona Phase-1, few of the customers of the petitioner required supply of cylinder and paid remittances through online. However, delivery was not made, and they lodged complaint with the respondent. The respondent made certain enquiries and found that delivery of cylinders were not promptly made across the payment already made.

¶16

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not that the petitioner

¶17

was unwilling to deliver, but a pandemic situation leading to nation wide lock down from 25.03.2020, has literally made it difficult for easy delivery of the

¶18

2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

¶21

cylinders. He also added that two of the complainants have withdrawn their complaints in writing, while the other has made a similar request with the respondent orally. In spite of the same, he was slapped a penalty as stated above.

¶22

3.The respondents have filed their counter. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is habituated to violate certain norms of customer care, that earlier, on a complaint that resulted in the petitioner filing W.P.No.761 of 2015, which this Court has disposed of vide its order dated 22.12.2021, and this Court directed the official to hold an enquiry into the matter. The other one was involved in W.P.No.8319 of 2020, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 02.02.2022. The learned counsel however, agreed that the issues involved in those two writ petitions are different. He added that since the issue involved in this case is the third complaint against the petitioner, a super penalty was imposed on him as per rules.

¶23

4.This Court is not going to engage itself with the issues involved in W.P.No.761 of 2015 and W.P.No.8319 of 2020. If the petitioner is liable to pay any penalty or any other consequences for anything that is involved in those writ petitions, that is

¶24

3/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

¶27

a separate issue and that cannot be tagged with this case. After all sofar as the present case is concerned, the allegation is all about non-delivery of three cylinders with three customers during peak of Corona wave-I, when not just the nation, but the world came to a stand still. This is not the time to take the cane and to discipline the dealer, more so delivery now of LPG cylinders slogged as Covid warriors. This apart two of the three complainants have also withdrew their complaints in writing and the third one was withdrawn orally.

¶28

5.In view of the above, the penalty now slapped vide the impugned proceedings dated 10.08.2020 of the 2^nd respondent is liable to be set aside. As already indicated, this has little to do with the consequences that may visit the petitioner in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.761 of 2015 and W.P.No.839 of 2020.

¶29

6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

03.07.2023

¶31

Anu Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : yes/no

¶32

4/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

¶35

To 1.The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034.

¶36

2.The Deputy General Manager (LPG Sales), 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

¶37

5/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13117 of 2020

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

Anu

W.P.No.13117 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.16243 of 2020

¶43

03.07.2023

¶44

6/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, v. The Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, v. The Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S. Periappa Gounder Vs Kandasamy Gounder

Pavunu Vs Kannaiya Pillai

V. Ramachandran Vs P. Selvam

V.Subathra Vs Executive Engineer

Jai Vigneshwar Vs the Director

S.Thangarasu Vs the Executive Engineer