Punjab

StateCommission

FA/818/2014

Suneeta Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

in person

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.   818 of 2014

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 25.6.2014  

                             Date of Decision:  29.1.2015

 

Suneeta Sharma, resident of H. No. 4571-C, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. Area Manager/ Senior Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. Chahal Gas Service, SCO no. 923/1, Mataur, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, (Mohali).

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Mrs. Suneeta Sharma, in person

          For respondents No.1&2  :         Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate

          For respondent No.3        :         Ms. Vibha Dhiman, Advocate

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.638 dated 18.12.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the Ops’) on the allegations that Anuresh Sharma s/o Sukhdev Sharma brother of the complainant resident of House No. 4571, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali) had gas connection of Indane Gas Company since 1990 and after his marriage, he shifted to Pune (Maharashtra). The complainant is real sister of Anuresh Sharma and residing in the same house alongwith her 80 years old mother. To get the gas connection transferred from the named Anuresh Sharma to the name of the complainant, the complainant approached the Area Manager/Sr. Manager OP No. 2, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh, who advised the complainant to get the gas connection transferred in her name by paying a nominal fee of Rs. 200/-. Accordingly, she approached Chahal Gas Agency, Mohali and they charged Rs. 1700/- and did not issue any receipt and directed the complainant to approach Indian Oil Corporation but the Area Manager did not pay any heed and her complaint was shuttle between Indian Oil Corporation to Chahal Gas Agency. In fact Chahal Gas Agency charged Rs. 1700/- for new connection instead of transferring the connection, which amounts to deficiency in services on their part. Accordingly, the complainant filed this complaint for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 1 & 2, who filed joint written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant had not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; no cause of action had arisen to the complainant to file this complaint at Mohali as the cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh; there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Ops whereas the transaction was between the complainant and OP No. 1 and OP Nos. 1 & 2 and OP No. 3 were to deal on principal to principal basis; the complainant had made false averments and tried to mis-lead Hon’ble Forum; the complainant had made a complaint to Op No. 3 for not transferring the LPG connection and further submitted that the original consumer Anuresh Sharma was not in her contact and she was not able to produce any consent letter from him. As per the policy, the connection could be regularized from the current security deposit in her name and for that she will have to submit a notarized affidavit as per Annexure-C, KYC formalities alongwith other documents and has to pay the difference of security amount i.e. current security minus old security deposited by Anuresh Sharma. She got convinced and accordingly she submitted Annexure-C, KYC, ID Proof and address proof to regularize the connection in her name by paying current security charges to the Distributor and accordingly, the Distributor had regularized the connection in her name. The old security was Rs. 1400/-, new security Rs. 3050/-, difference Rs. 1650/- and Rs. 50/- were charged for blue book, therefore, nothing over and above against admissible amount was charged. No deficiency in services on the part of the Op. Complaint is without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                Op No. 3 in their separate written reply has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no pending grievance of the complainant for redressal. She had already got the gas connection transferred in her name after paying Rs. 1700/- as differential security; complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was already in possession of a gas connection in the name of one Anuresh Sharma. She in her complaint has clearly stated that Rs. 1700/- paid as differential of security. On merits, the averments taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated and it was submitted that the complaint was without merit; it be dismissed.

5.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

6.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, letter dt. 7.10.13 Ex. C-1, receipt of amount received Ex. C-2, slip of Mohali Gas Enterprises Exs. C-3 & 6, Gas Connection details Exs. C-4, 5 & 8, Gas connection issuing slip Ex. C-7, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-9, Aadhar Card copy Ex. C-10, KYC Form copy Ex. C-11, Blue book printout Exs. C-12 & 13. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Murmu Ex. Op-1/1, affidavit of Mrs. Kamaljit Mann Ex. Op-3/1, Duties of Distributor Ex. Op-1, affidavit of complainant Ex. Op-2, Chahal Gas Service letter dt. 8.10.13 Ex. OP-3, Memorandum of Agreement between Indane & Chahal Gas Ex. Op-4.

7.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.

8.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that Rs. 1700/- were wrongly charged from her for transfer of the connection. The evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Forum. The order be set-aside and the complaint be allowed.

9.                It is clear from the averments of the parties that originally the connection was in the name of brother of the complainant Anuresh Sharma, who shifted to Maharashtra and she applied for the transfer of connection. In the complaint, she has referred the fee as Rs. 200/- whereas the Ops have taken the plea that difference of the old security and new security was required to be paid after the complainant completes the entire requirement for transfer of the connection. Although formalities were completed and the gas connection has been transferred in the name of the complainant, therefore, the dispute is what amount was required to be paid for the transfer of the connection in the name of the complainant to the Ops. She had paid Rs. 1700/- as per receipt Ex. C-2. Ex. C-4 is the transfer voucher. Ex. Op-1 is the instructions for transfer of the connection for which the person will give affidavit as per Format-C and the Ops were to issue SV as per prevailing policy as per current security. Take KYC, POA, POI etc.. Ex. C-7 is the order issued by the Indian Oil Corporation vide which the current security is Rs. 3050/- and in case old security was Rs. 1400/- then Rs. 1650/- was required to be paid. The old security is clear from the document Ex. C-8 is Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 50/- was required for issuance of the blue book. Therefore, the amount charged from the complainant is in accordance with the Indian Oil Corporation policy. The complainant has not been able to establish on the record that transfer charges were only Rs. 200/-. Therefore, we are of the opinion that learned District Forum has properly appreciated the documents on the record and came to the conclusion that fee charged from the complainant for transfer of the connection was in accordance with the directions issued by Indian Oil Corporation, therefore, the learned District Forum was justified to dismiss the complaint. We affirm the findings.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 29, 2015.                                                                                                                                                           (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

as                                                                                                                                                                                              Member