Complainant Onkar Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to refill the Gas Cylinders, failing which the refund amount of Rs.5,000/- and also to pay Rs.80,000/- to him as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he had applied for getting Gas connection and the opposite party no.3 has taken Rs.5,000/- from him and he had given 1 Cylinder and 1 Regulator of the Company. The opposite party no.2 has also issued Consumer Gas Card bearing Consumer Serial No.SS000931 dated 1.1.2013 but the opposite party no.2 has wrongly and illegally written Rs.2400/- as deposit amount. On his asking that why he has written the amount of Rs.2400/- inspite of receiving the amount of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party no.2 told that it is not of her matter. Thereafter he got refilled his Cylinders against Rs.480/- and he got refilled the same on 12.10.2012, 23.11.2012, 1.11.2013, 9.2.2013, 8.32013, 19.4.2013, 14.6.2013, 23.7.2013, 26.8.2013, 21.10.2013 and 16.12.2013. Thereafter he approached the opposite party number of times for refilling his cylinders but all the times the opposite party no.2 and 3 procrastinated the matter with one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties and have also raised certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that  the complainant had bought the connection on 12.10.2012 from the previous owner who have not been made the party by the complainant in the present complaint and Satwant Kaur, the Proprietor of Guru Nanak Gas Agency had purchased the Gas agency on 19.11.2012 as such the complainant had purchased the connection from the previous owner and the present Proprietor had stepped into the shoes of Proprietor after more than one month after the purchase of Gas connection by the complainant. It was denied that the complainant had applied for Gas connection and the opposite party has taken Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and he had been given one cylinder and one Regulator of the company as the opposite party no.3 is not the proprietor or employee or agent of the said Gas agency and the complainant had purchased the Gas connection much prior to the time when opposite party no.2 Satwant Kaur had purchased the Gas Agency, therefore, opposite party no.3 is nowhere connected with the purchase of gas connection by the complainant. It was also denied that opposite party no.2 has also issued Consumer Gas Card bearing Consumer Serial No.SS000931 dated 1.1.2013. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Notice issued to opposite party no.1 has been received back with the report of ‘Refusal’. Refused report of service conveys that opposite party no.1 was aware about the complaint but opposite party no.1 was reluctant to put in appearance despite service. Thus, it was preceded against exparte.  

5.  Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

7.      We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while at the same time also taking the due judicial-notice of the OP1 vender’s intentional ‘ex-parte’ participation, in spite of the ‘proven’ summon-service. Although, it has been a settled law that a title-named party’s intentional absence/ex-parte participation gives rise to the judicial but discretionary presumption that the ex-parte/absentee litigant has no defense to prosecute; still, we have provided a judicious opportunity to the OP1 vendor insurers by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/ base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act.

8.       We find that the domestic Gas Consumer Card (Ex.C1 & C2) # SV 000931 & Subscription voucher (Ex.C3) as produced by the present complainant stands issued by the principal namely: Prachi Gas Bottling Pvt. Ltd., (in complainant’s name) with the OP1 vendor’s name: Guru Nanak Gas Agency duly rubber stamped over it as its Distributor. Further, the Subscriber Voucher (as issued/exhibited here) is dated 01.01.2013 having issued on 12.10.2012 whereas the titled OP3 party has deposed (Ex.OP1) in his affidavit that the OP2 Satwant Kaur had purchased the OP1 Gas Agency (from Sarabjit Singh & ors) to take effect from 19.11.2012 only and as such they have been wrongly impleaded/enjoined here as opposite parties to the exclusion of the other necessary parties namely: Prachi Gas &…..Others etc. The responding opposite party(s) have also disclosed that they have themselves been ‘victim(s)’ of one larger ‘fraud/feasance’ along with other such distributors in the state(s) who have jointly filed relief petition before the honorable Punjab & Haryana High Court and as such the present complaint shall not be maintainable. We find that the present complainant has neither rebutted/ repelled the above OP pleadings nor has produced on record any acceptable cogent evidence to annul the same. Thus, it does not stand proved on the complaint proceedings that the tilted opposite parties have bruised any of the complainants’ consumer rights as envisaged under the CP Act’1986; And, that definitely de-voids the present complaint of the requisite statuary merit under the adjudicatory statute. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint to be devoid of all actionable merit as statutorily envisaged under the CP Act and thus ORDER the dismissal of the same with however no orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                     (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

February, 03 2016.                                            Member.

*MK*