DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.196/19.11.2008 Decided on : 05.06.2009 Sh.Mehar Singh S/o Sh.Gurdial Singh resident of Village Rangrial, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Bareta Gas Service, Budhlada Road, Bareta, District Mansa through its Manager. 2.Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Ali Jabar Jang Marg, (E), Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Avtar Singh Pandher, Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh.P.K.Singla,Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 Before: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Mehar Singh son of Sh.Gurdial Singh, a resident of Village Rangrial, District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') for giving direction to the opposite parties for giving him connection for supply of gas for cooking food and for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses for filing of this complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is as under:- Contd........2 : 2 : That he secured LPG gas connection in his house for cooking purpose from OP No.1, who has been alloted code No.198853, being a distributor of OP No.2. The OP No.1 alloted Account No.1706460 to the complainant and started supply of gas, as such, complainant is consumer of LPG gas under the opposite parties. After initial supply of gas refills, complainant approached OP No.1 for their supply several times, but he did not supply the gas on one pretext or the other. On 12.8.2008, he accompanied with one Tarsem Singh S/o Sh.Gurbaksh Singh, a co-villager, approached OP No.1 for supply of gas refills, but the manager employed in the premises of the gas agency of OP No.1, refused to do so and used filthy language against them. He also made cross marks with pen on the pass book delivered by the complainant indicating its cancellation, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and he had to cook food by use of kerosene oil purchased at much higher rate. Hence the complaint. On being put to notice, opposite party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint because he had been visiting the premises of the gas agency of answering opposite party for supply of gas on behalf of Tarsem Singh S/o Sh.Gurbaksh Singh, but his personal request for supply of gas refill to himself was never turned down ; that complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the answering opposite party; that on suspicion being arisen about the identity of the real subscriber, the answering opposite party insisted for supply of proof of identity like ration card, after which the complainant started giving threats to teach a lesson to the manager of the answering opposite party. On merits, it is admitted that answering opposite party has been appointed distributor of LPG gas by OP No.2 and has been alloted code No.198853 by the OP No.2. It is also admitted that complainant had been Contd........3 : 3 : alloted Account No.1706460 and gas refills are being delivered to the him regularly. The allegation regarding conduct of the complainant and demand of Rs.20000/- for supply of gas to Tarsem Singh have been reiterated in their entirety. It is submitted that gas refill can be supplied to the consumer or his representative in time subject to production of proof of identity and residence. The allegation regarding use of filthy language by the manager of the answering opposite party or misbehavior with the complainant are denied and it is submitted that the complainant has concocted a false version. It is also denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party for supply of gas to the complainant or that he has been subjected to physical and mental harassment for the said reasons. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the same with costs. The Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint, is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. On merits, the factum of appointment of OP No.1 as distributor by him vide code No.198853 and issuance of gas connection to the complainant is not denied. It is asserted that supply of gas to the complainant was never irregular, rather, the complainant had been drawing gas refills regularly from the distributor, as recorded in the Customer History Card. It is submitted that gas refills are to be supplied to the customers on the date of booking itself and distributor has never refused to do so. It is also submitted that complainant was advised by the distributor to produce proof of identity and residence for the purpose of verification before supply of gas refill. It is also contended that verification regarding issuance of LPG connections is being carried out by the distributor in the State of Punjab. It is denied that complainant visited Contd........4 : 4 : the premises of OP No.1, rather it is contended that a third person approached the OP No.1 and on being approached, he was advised that gas refills can be supplied by the distributors only to the registered subscribers on production of proof of identity and residential address. It is further contended that stamp was also affixed on the pass book of the customers by the distributor and they were advised to come present with proof of identity and residence at the time of booking of next refill. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the same with costs. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Exhibit C-1, and photo copy of cause title of gas card issued in his name by OP No.1 Ext.C-2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order dated 30.4.2009, whereas the counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. S.K.Sharma, Sales Manager Ext.OP-1 and closed the evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh.Avtar Singh Pandher, Advocate, at the outset, has submitted that version projected by the opposite parties is improbable because no gas agency will issue the gas connection without production of proof of identity and residence. Learned counsel has submitted that contents of the affidavit of the complainant tendered in evidence regarding non supply of gas refills to him and Tarsem Singh have gone uncontroverted and no evidence to the contrary has been produced by OP No.1. Learned counsel has urged that complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has to bear extra costs for cooking of food in his house due to non supply of gas refills by OP No.1 on demand, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of Contd........5 : 5 : the opposite parties for which complainant can seek direction for ensuring regular supply of gas refills on demand. Learned counsel has further argued that in support of his plea that after the date of issuance of gas connection, the OP No.1 never supplied him gas refills, complainant has filed duly sworn affidavit, contents of which are gone uncontroverted, as OP No.1 has not produced any oral and documentary evidence to controvert the same. Learned counsel has prayed that OP No.1 be burdened with compensation and costs, as sought in the complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, has submitted that supply of gas refills to the complainant was never refused by his client, but he is aggrieved for non supply of gas refills to him on behalf of some other consumer, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Learned counsel has argued that as per plea taken in the written version by OP No.2, process of verification of supply of gas refills to the real subscribers is in progress, as such, supply of gas refill cannot be made to a person who is not a subscriber without production of proof of identity and residence, by any distributor against the instructions given by the OP No.2. Learned counsel argued that contents of the affidavit of the complainant are not corroborated by the affidavit of any other person and he has failed to disclose any particular date on which supply of gas refill was refused by his client and he has withheld the relevant pages of the pass book issued to him containing entries regarding supply of gas refills, as such, his complaint being false and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. At the stage, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that complainant has withheld the relevant pages of the pass book issued to him containing entries regarding supply of gas refills by the distributor against his gas connection and as per instructions given to the distributors, production of proof of identity and Contd........6 : 6 : residence by all the subscribers is necessary, so that gas is not secured by any person other than the subscriber by mis use of their pass books. Learned counsel argued that his client is not party to any dealing between the complainant and OP No.1 and deficiency in service qua his gas connection is not proved, as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. Admittedly, gas connection has been issued in the name of the complainant by OP No.1, who is distributor of OP No.2 at Bareta for supply of gas refills to the consumers in the area. The Customer History Card is supposed to be in possession of OP No.1. Due to the withholding of the said material document by him, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant remained successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. There is nothing to distrust the contents of his affidavit Ext.C-1 to the extent that he had suffered mental and physical harassment due to non supply of gas refills on demand by OP No.1. As such, he is entitled to payment of compensation and avoidable expenses spent by him for filing of the complaint. However, in the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has gracefully conceded that no liability can be fastened upon OP No.2 because he is, in no manner, associated with the conduct of OP No.1, even if he has been appointed as a distributor for supply of gas refills in the area by OP No.2. Even otherwise, it not the plea of either party to the complaint that gas refills were not available or complainant was not entitled to delivery thereof because of any instruction issued by the company concerned. It appears that OP No.2 has been impleaded as a party being principle as liability has been sought against his agent. As such, complaint against OP No.2 is bound to fail. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint against OP No.2 and accept the same against OP No.1 with direction to supply gas refills to the complainant on demand, as and when required, subject to Contd.......7 : 7 : rules, payment of costs and production of proof of identity and proof of residence. The OP No.1 is also burdened in the sum of Rs.500/- on account of compensation for physical and mental harassment and equal amount on account of costs incurred by the complainant for filing the instant complaint. The compliance of this order about payment of compensation and costs be made within the period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of this order, till date of actual payment. 13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 05.06.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
