DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALWAL
Consumer Complaint No . 52 of 2014 Date of Institution: 02.05.2014
Date of Decision : 25.03.2015.
Padam Singh son of Sh. Mangal Singh residence of Ward No. 3, Punjabi Mohalla, Hathin, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal.
.. Complainant Versus
1. M/s Jai Kishan Sewa Sadan Gas Agency Sector-2, Palwal Tehsil & District Palwal, through Proprietor.
2. State Public Information Officer & District & Food Supply Controller, Railway Road, Palwal, Tehsil & District Palwal.
3. Additional Director Food& Supply Department, Bays-30, Building Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. A.K.Jindal Chief Regional Manager main Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rohtak Road, Jind, District Jind.
5. Executive Director L.P.G. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Building-8, Sorozi Ballamdas Marg Ballard, State Mumbai,400001. ..Respondents
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: JAGBIR SINGH: PRESIDENT
KHUSHWINDER KAUR: MEMBER
R.S.DHARIWAL: MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh.S.D.Baghel, Advocate for complainant.
Smt. Babita Kaushik,Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no. 2 and 3 exparte.
Sh.M.S.Rawat,Advocate for opposite parties no. 4 & 5.
ORDER:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant having gas connection no. 618657 obtained from opposite party no.1 in 1999 went to Distribution Centre, Hathin of opposite party no.1 on 25.1.2013 to book the 6th subsidy cylinder but opposite party no. 1 did
-2-
not book the cylinder stating that all the subsidy cylinders had been given to the complainant. The complainant showed his gas passbook to the employees of said distributor and told that he had not taken delivery of 6th subsidy cylinder but they had delivered his cylinder to another person illegally. Upon this the distributor of Hathin asked him to visit the office of opposite party no. 1 to get all the information regarding said cylinders.
The complainant requested opposite party no.1 many times for several months to deliver the 6th subsidy cylinder to him but opposite party no. 1 and his employees did not pay any heed as well as misbehaved with him. On 15.5.2013 the complainant filed an application before State Public Information Officer under RTI Act to seek information regarding said gas connection but opposite party no. 2 did not supply the sought information within the prescribed time. The complainant suffered a loss of approximately Rs.15,000/- due to several visits to the office of opposite parties. The complainant filed First Appeal before opposite party no. 3 on 23.7.2013 upon which opposite party no. 3 fixed 21.8.2013 for personal hearing of the complainant and opposite parties no. 1 and 2. The complainant appeared before the First Appellate Authority on the date fixed whereas opposite parties no. 1 and 2 did not appear. Thereafter, an officer namely Ashwani Gaur who was present there misbehaved with the complainant and did not take any satisfactory action. The complainant neither got justice from opposite party no. 3 nor any action was taken against opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the complainant filed Second Appeal in the office of Commission.
The complainant lodged a complaint dated 15.5.2013 before the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal but no action was taken. So he filed First Appeal on 20.11.2013 but no action was taken. Hence the complainant filed Second Appeal before Haryana State Information
-3-
Commission, Chandigarh but he did not get justice. The complainant incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs.20,000/- on account of correspondence and several visits to Chandigarh and Faridabad and suffered mental agony, physical pain as well as financial loss of Rs.20,000/- due to deficiency in service of opposite parties. The complainant prayed for directing opposite parties to pay Rs.55,000/- on account of mental agony, physical pain and financial loss alongwith cost of complaint in addition to Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
Notice of this complaint was issued to opposite parties on 2.5.2014 for 12.6.2014 but none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 3. Notice to opposite party no. 3 not received back hence deemed to be served after expiry of one month, so opposite party no. 3 was proceeded against exparte on 12.06.2014. On dated 2.9.2014 none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2, so opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte on 2.9.2014. Opposite parties no.1, 4 and 5 put in appearance and filed written statements. In written statement opposite party no. 1 refuted claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections such as the complaint was false, frivolous, fictitious, not maintainable, the complainant had no cause of action and locus standi, was estopped by his own acts, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present complaint. The complaint had been filed to grab huge money from opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no. 1 pleaded that on 25.1.2013 the complainant had already exhausted his quota of subsidy cylinders and the complainant had not shown his gas passbook. Opposite party no. 1 denied the fraudulent supply of complainant’s cylinder to some other person. Opposite party no. 1 admitted that the complainant was its regular customer since 1999 and so is very well known to opposite party no. 1. On the date of supply of refill cylinder the complainant was not having his gas passbook but the supply was made regularly to the
-4-
complainant since 1999. Opposite party no. 1 admitted the mistake of not regarding the supply of cylinders in the gas passbook of the complainant. Opposite party no. 1 denied that visit of the complainant several times for removal of his grievance. It was brought to the notice of complainant several times that if the complainant was not satisfied with the services of opposite party no. 1 then he could get his gas connection transferred to some other agency under latest policy. Opposite party no. 1 denied that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- as alleged. The complainant was in the habit of making false complaints. The complainant had got two connections at the same house one in his name and the other in the name of his son Devender vide consumer no. 649737 on 12.7.2013 by producing a ration card of Hathin area whereas his son was employed in Naval Services and was posted at Mangalore. Sh. Devender had furnished an affidavit that neither he nor any member of his family had any domestic LPG connection from any PSU Oil company anywhere in India. The subsidy amount was being credited in his A/c No. 31700404105 of SBI Panambhur branch Mangalore, IFSC Code 0002249. Moreover, he had been a consumer of M/s Kamdhenu Gas Service at Mangalore vide consumer no. 18202. In the absence of Devender Singh or his family members at their given address in Hathin the subsidy quota cylinders was being wrongfully used by the complainant. The complainant may be asked to give details about the visit of his son between 1.1.2013 to 31.3.2014 because during this period he got his ration card issued from concerned authorities, signed the affidavit for getting LPG connection and had consumed 5 subsidy cylinders as a Defence person was not granted leave so frequently. Opposite parties no.1 admitted that vide order dated 5.5.2014 GSA/complaints under subject MDG action opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had fined opposite party no. 1 an amount of Rs.1060.30/- for unaccounted sale of one cylinder which was deposited. Hence a person can only be tried once for any act and penalized for that act. He cannot be penalized for the same act
-5-
second time. Opposite party no. 1 denied the expenses incurred by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
Opposite parties no. 4 and 5 put in appearance and filed joint written statements stating that opposite parties no. 4 and 5 were Officers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 and engaged in the business of refining and marketing of petroleum products. Opposite parties no. 4 and 5 raised preliminary objections such as the complainant had no locus standi and was not a consumer of opposite parties no. 4 and 5. The complainant was getting supply from opposite party no. 1 so opposite parties no. 4 and 5 were not liable to compensate the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties no. 4 and 5. Further relationship between opposite party no. 1 and opposite parties no. 4 and 5 was on a principal to principal basis. As per Clause 18,19, 20 & 21 read with other clauses of the Dealership Agreement dated 10.3.2008 between opposite party no. 1 and opposite parties no. 4 & 5, opposite party no. 1 should act and be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent of opposite parties no. 4 and 5. Hence there was no deficiency in service attributable on the part of opposite parties no. 4 and 5. The complainant was estopped by his act and conduct to file the complaint against opposite parties no. 4 and 5. On receipt of complaint from the complainant opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had fined opposite party no. 1 for irregularity an amount of Rs. 1060.30/- vide order dated 5.5.2014 under said Dealership Agreement.
Opposite parties no. 4 and 5 pleaded that there was no allegation against opposite parties no. 4 and 5 and denied the knowledge of any loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant was not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
In support of his claim the complainant placed on record his own supporting Affidavit Ex. CW1/A wherein he solemnly affirmed the same facts which he enumerated in his complaint and relied upon the
-6-
following documents:-
Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 Photocopies of applications/orders regarding RTI Act.
Ex.C-22 Photocopy of application to D.C.Palwal.
Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-27 Photocopies of applications/orders regarding RTI Act.
Ex.C-28 Photocopy of ration card of complainant.
Ex.C-29 Photocopy of ration card of Sh. Devender Singh.
On the other hand, Sh.Mukesh Kumar Singla, Dealer of M/S Jai Kissan Sewa Sadan, Palwal of opposite party no.1 placed on record his Affidavit Ex. RW1/A wherein he affirmed and declared the same facts as were enumerated in the reply of opposite party no.1.
Counsel for opposite parties no. 4 and 5 has made a statement to the effect that reply already on the file be read as his evidence.
The Forum heard Sh. S.D. Baghel Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Smt. Babita Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sh. M.S.Rawat, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties no. 4 and 5 at length and have gone through the case file carefully as well as written arguments.
Admittedly the complainant is consumer of opposite party no. 1 vide consumer no 618657 since 1999 and was being supplied refilled domestic gas cylinders by opposite party no. 1 regularly but on 25.1.2013 despite showing his gas passbook the complainant was denied sixth subsidized gas cylinder by distribution centre, Hathin of opposite party no. 1 on the ground that he had already taken his sixth subsidized cylinder. The complainant alleged that his sixth subsidized gas cylinder was delivered to another person illegally. Inspite of several visits opposite party no. 1 did not deliver the said cylinder to the complainant due to which he suffered mental agony, physical pain and financial loss and prayed for compensation of Rs 55000/ alongwith litigation expenses of Rs 11000/- from opposite parties.
-7-
The Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 argued that the complainant had got two gas connections at the same house i.e. one in his own name & other in the name of his son Devender. Sh. Devender, employed in Naval services and posted at Mangalore had furnished an affidavit that neither he nor any member of his family had any domestic LPG connection from any PSU Oil company anywhere in India so he was given gas connection vide no. 649737 dated 12.7.2013 by opposite party no. 1 at Hathin. Sh. Devender is also having a gas connection vide No. 18202 of M/s Kamdhenu Gas Service at Mangalore. The subsidy amount of gas cylinder was being credited in his account no. 31700404105 of State Bank of India, Panambhur branch, Mangalore. In the absence of Devender Singh or his family members at Hathin the subsidy quota of cylinders was being wrongfully used by the complainant. This plea of Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 has no force as the complainant can not be held liable and made to suffer for any irregularity committed by some other person. Opposite party no. 1 has not produced any document on record to prove any irregularity committed by the complainant. The plea of misuse of subsidy quota of cylinders meant for Devender by the complainant is not relevant to this case as the allegation levied against opposite party no. 1 is of non delivery/supply of sixth subsidy cylinder of the complainant to the complainant. Opposite party no. 1 has not produced any record to prove that sixth subsidy cylinder was delivered/ supplied to the complainant. The plea of Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 that sixth subsidy gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant but the same was not recorded in the gas passbook of the complainant in good faith is not supported by placing on record any cogent evidence maintained by opposite party no 1 to prove the contention.
The Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 further argued that the complainant had not visited opposite party no. 1 several times as alleged as such he was not entitled for any compensation. This argument is contrary to the written statement and affidavit filed by
-8-
opposite party no. 1 wherein it had been stated that it was brought to the notice of the complainant several times to get his gas connection transferred to some other agency, in case he was not satisfied. Thus it is ample clear that the complainant had visited opposite party no. 1 several times.
The Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 forcefully argued that under the clauses of Dealership Agreement dated 10.3.2008, opposite parties no. 4 & 5 had imposed a fine of Rs. 1060.30/- on opposite party no. 1 for unauthorized sale of one gas cylinder. The fine had been paid by opposite party no. 1 so opposite party no. 1 could not be penalized for the same act second time. This argument does not apply in this case as opposite party no. 1 was not penalized by any court of law under any statute but by opposite parties no. 4 & 5 under terms & conditions of agreement between the parties.
The Ld. Counsel for opposite parties no. 4 & 5 argued that there was no privity of contract between the complainant & opposite parties no. 4 & 5. The relationship between opposite party no. 1 & opposite parties no. 4 & 5 was on principal to principal basis. On receipt of complaint from the complainant opposite parties no. 4 & 5 had imposed a fine of Rs. 1060.30 on opposite party no. 1 for irregularity. The Ld. Counsel for opposite parties no. 4 & 5 further argued that the complainant had not made any allegation against opposite parties no. 4 & 5. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 4 & 5.
The forum is of the considered view that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 4 & 5. The complainant has made allegations of deficiency in service against opposite parties no. 2 &3 under Right To Information Act but in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs Public Information Officer (PIO) & Others decided on 8.1.15 in Revision No. 3146 of 2012 (1) CLT page 259, the jurisdiction of
-9-
consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of provisions of RTI Act is barred by necessary implication and applicant seeking information under RTI Act is not a consumer. So allegations against opposite parties no. 2 & 3 are not entertainable in this Forum. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party no. 1. The complainant suffered mental agony and physical pain on account of non delivery of sixth subsidy domestic gas cylinder which is used for cooking food. Hence opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10000/- on account of mental agony, physical pain & financial loss as well as Rs. 2200/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which opposite party no. 1 shall be further burdened with penalty amount of Rs 2000/- in addition to award amount. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. This order of the Forum is running into 9 pages and each page of this order has been signed by this Forum.
Announced on:25.3.2015 (JAGBIR SINGH)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Palwal
(KHUSHWINDER KAUR)
Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(R. S. DHARIWAL)
Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
