Delhi

East Delhi

CC/398/2019

VIJAY KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDRAPRASTHA GAS - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 C.C. NO. 398/2019

 

Vijay Kumar 76A, DDA MIG Flats, Shivam Enclave, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032.	….Complainant
Versus
General Manager ( Project) Indraprastha Gas Limited, IGL Bhawan, Plot No.4, Community Centre, Sector – 9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110022.                                    ….OP

Date of Institution: 24.12.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 19.12.2023

Judgment Passed on:19.12.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. By this Judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in not installing the Domestic PNG Gas Connection at his house and then not refunding the deposited amount even.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that on the advertisement issued by OP in the month of September, 2015 for providing the Domestic PNG Connection in the locality of the complainant, he applied for one PNG Gas Connection by tendering an application form under registration form No. 53864 alongwith the cheque of Rs.6000/- dated 05.09.2015 which was debited from his account on 26.10.2015.
3. However the PNG connection was not provided up to March, 2016. The Complainant thereafter wrote various letters to the OP but of no consequences and ultimately he received an mail from OP on 21.10.2016 that the amount of the complainant has been refunded by OP on 30.07.2013 and it was told to the complainant to apply for new connection. The Complainant thereafter wrote a letter to the OP that he in fact he has applied for new connection and the amount which was refunded on 30.07.2013 does not pertain to the new application which was submitted by complainant on 05.09.2015, and then the complainant, on the request of OP, provided all the fresh details of application number, cheque number, date of debit from his account etc. and then complainant received another reply on 24.10.2016 thereby regretting inconvenience and told the complainant that the record of the OP was not up dated and OP then again asked to provide BP Number which is otherwise issued by the OP itself. However, the complainant provided BP No.4000230140 to OP though email dated 08.11.2016 but despite that no PNG connection was provided.
4. Thereafter complainant wrote various emails to the OP on 30.11.2016, 02.12.2016, 15.12.2016, 11.01.2017, 24.01.2017, 09.02.2017, 10.03.2017, 31.03.2017, 26.07.2017, 11.08.2017, 17.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 13.09.2017 and 14.09.2017 and he wrote about 14 emails to the OP up to 14.09.2017 and complaint also requested the OP to provide the action taken report, on the previous complaints, but no action was taken. However, vide letter dated 24.01.2018 the complainant was informed that the amount of Rs.6000/- was received on 05.09.2015 but new BP number was give as 4000365179, in place of old BP number i.e. 4000230140 and it was also told that the PNG connection cannot be provided to the complainant on account of non-feasibility and the same can only be provided if certain modification at the place, where PNG Connection is prayed for, are done, but no connection was ever provided.
5. The complainant again wrote further complaints on 20.03.2018, 24.05.2018, 01.08.2018 and 07.06.2019 requesting the OP to provide connection but was not provided and thereafter he approached the Delhi State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA) which organized lok adalat on 14.09.2019, but OP even did not appear there and ultimately he has filed the present complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency in service with the prayer that OP be directed to refund Rs.6000/- with interest @24% per annum, Compensation of Rs.400000/- and Litigation expanses of Rs.15000/-.
6. The OP was served on 05.11.2022 but did not appear and was ultimately proceeded ex-parte. The counsel for OP appeared for the first time on 06.07.2023 and even filed their reply but never replied to the query as to how, without setting aside said ex-parte proceeding against it, WS can be filed, and since the OP was running ex-parte at the stage of filing WS, the contents of written statement cannot be and are not being mentioned, here in since the defense of OP is not on record. However it is a matter of record that on 20.09.2023, the OP without prejudice to the right of the complainant, had given a DD of Rs.6000/- to the complainant which was accepted by the complainant. Complainant has also filed his evidence and has re-affirmed the contents of the complaint.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that on the basis advertisement issued by the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.6000/- with the OP for having a domestic PNG Connection at his residence which was not provided and despite writing various mails, the connection was not provided and as such he is now requested to refund the entire amount in the complainant. There is no written statement of the OP on record and even otherwise he is running ex-parte, but it is matter of record that counsel for the OP appeared and even argued that the connection could not have been provided to the complainant as the Kitchen of complainant was non-feasible to provide PNG connection on account of ventilation and the complainant did not modify the kitchen so as to the connection be provided, despite various visits of the technical team of the OP. When confronted by the Commission to give details of such visits by the technical official/team of the OP, no specific date was given. It cannot be believed that technical team of OP would visit the complainant and would not keep the record of such visit. No such record of non-feasibility or any letter written by OP thereby telling the complaint to modify the place where PNG connection was to be installed is placed on record.
9. Therefore the issue remains as to whether there was any deficiency on service on the part of OP or not. The complainant has placed on record the documents which are not disputed rather it is the matter of record that when efforts were made by the Commission to explore the possibility of settlement, the OP without prejudice to the right of the complainant has even given a DD of Rs.6000/- to the complainant which complainant had accepted without prejudice to his right and therefore facts have now been clear that the amount was received by complainant by OP in 2015, PNG connection was not provided to him till the date of filing the complaint and amount of Rs.6000/- has been returned.
10. These facts read conjointly are sufficient to prove that there was deficiency of service on the part of OP and complainant at this stage is justified in refusing the connection.
11. Therefore the Commission hereby orders that OP would pay interest @12% per annum to OP from the date of deposited the amount of Rs.6000/- i.e. 05.09.2015 up to the date of 20.09.2023 and apart from that the OP would also pay compensation of Rs.7500/- to the complainant and ligation charges of Rs.2500/-
12. This whole amount is payable within 30 days failing which this amount would carry the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till is actually paid.   
3. opy of the Judgment be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 19.12.2023.