Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1284/2013

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaitu Gas Service and others - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Gupta

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.   1284 of 2013

                                                           

                                   Date of institution: 25.11.2013 

                             Date of Decision:    27.2.2015

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Rattan Lal, resident of Dine Milk Wali Gali, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Jaitu Gas Service, Hospital Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Manager/Authorised Person.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indane Gas, Bathinda through its Manager/Authorized Person, Mansa Road, Near Vill. Jassi Pan Wali, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
3. Sh. S.K. Sharma, Sales Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, Indane Gas, Bathinda, Mansa Road, Near Vill. Jassi Pan Wali, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

          For respondent No. 1       :         None.

          For respondent No. 2       :         Sh. M.S. Rana, Advocate

          For respondent No. 3       :         Ex.-parte.

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.45 dated 15.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with a direction to OP No. 1 to release the new gas connection to the complainant, subject to condition that the complainant constructed temporary/permanent kitchen in his house within a period of one month. In case of non-compliance of the order within a specified time, the complaint shall be treated as dismissed. If OP No. 1 fails to release the new connection after fulfilment of afore mentioned requirement then the complainant can initiate the proceedings under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that OP No. 1 is Distributor of Indane Gas Company working under the name and style of Jaitu Gas Service. OP No. 2 is the head of Indane Gas Company and Op No. 3 is the Sales Officer of the Company. The complainant had applied for new gas connection for his kitchen through Op No. 1. OP No. 1 issued a letter dated 27.2.2013 for new Indane Gas Connection against waiting list No. 1111104250002621 to the complainant and when complainant approached Op and clear the formalities, the Op wanted to forcibly give the Gas Stove to the complainant but the complainant asked the concerned employee of OP No. 1 that he has already having the Gas Stove ISI Mark and ready to check through Op No. 1. However, Op No. 1 harass the complainant by demanding to fulfil the abovesaid formalities again and again and making false and baseless excuses just to harassed the complainant. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of Mr. S.K. Sharma OP No. 3 and also written to Sudesh Gupta of Indian Oil Corporation, Chandigarh  but to no result. He had also contacted Field Officer Harsawroop Singh but with no positive result. He also approached Op No. 1 after receiving letter dated 27.2.2013 and employees of OP No. 1 stated that there is no stock of Regulator and told to visit the office after 10-15 days. Complainant again visited the office of Op No. 1 with one Sachin s/o Romesh Kumar, resident of Gaushala Road, Jaitu regarding his new gas connection but the behaviour of the Ops with the Customer was not upto mark. He also asked the information through RTI under which the customer can purchase the Gas Stove in the Open Market and in case the customer had already had the Gas Stove, then , compelling to the complainant to purchase the Gas Stove with a new gas connection by the Ops was against the rules and regulations and amounts to embarrassment in front of guests, friends, near and dears and amounts to deficiency in services. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to issue the new gas connection, pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for loss of kitchen work and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops. Op No. 1 in his written reply took the preliminary objections that the complainant was not at all the consumer of the OP as no amount was charged from the complainant at the time of taking the gas connection, the complainant had concealed the material fact from the Hon’ble Forum regarding procedure, which he intentionally failed to comply with and has filed the complaint, just to pressurize OP No. 1. When the term of the complainant for releasing a gas connection came, he was duly informed vide letter dated 27.2.2013 vide which he was asked to complete some formalities and the connection was already released in the name of father of the complainant, which bears LPG connection No. 02750. Therefore, the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed. On merits, the averments stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was submitted that the complaint was without merit, just to harass the OP and it be dismissed.

4.                Op Nos. 2 & 3 in their written reply had taken the preliminary objections that the complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands; there was no privity of contract with these Ops and there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP Nos. 2 & 3, as such, the complaint was not maintainable against these Ops. It was further submitted that complainant was registered as a new Domestic LPG connection and by entering the data on the record, it was revealed that LPG connection was already running at the same address in the name of the father of the complainant and according to LPG (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, a person having connection for LPG under the Public Distribution System shall not possess more than one connection of the LPG granted under the Public Distribution System. On merits, the same averments were denied and it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and 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 his affidavit Exs. C-1 & 3, letter Ex. C-2, ration card copy Ex. C-4, application dated 30.3.13 Ex. C-5, application dated 4.4.13 Ex. C-6. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence copy of consumer detail Ex. OP-1/1, verification report Ex. Op-1/2, letter dt. 1.7.11 Ex. Op-1/3, affidavit of Krishan Lal Ex. Op-1/4. OP Nos. 2 & 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Harswrup Chaudhary Ex. Op-2&3/5, dealership agreement Ex. Op-2&3/6, judgment/order dt. 31.8.12 Ex. Op-2&3/7, order dt. 13.8.12 Ex. Op-2&3/8, verification report Ex. Op-2&3/9, circular dated 21.1.13 Ex. Op-2&3/10, regulation dt. 26.4.2010 Ex. Op-2&3/11.

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 allowed as stated above.

8.                In the appeal, it was contended by the counsel for the appellant that although the direction was given to the Ops to release the connection in favour of the complainant but the connection was applied by the complainant in the year 2013 and the connection was not released and ultimately, the complainant had to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Although above mentioned direction has been given to release the gas connection but no amount towards a compensation and litigation expenses was awarded by the District Forum. It has been prayed that some amount towards compensation and litigation expenses be given.

9.                No doubt that order was passed for release for the connection to the complainant but the connection was not released to the complainant. The reason for the same is that father of the complainant was already having connection in the same premises. There was no separate kitchen with the complainant for which connection was required, therefore, directions were given to the complainant to construct the kitchen. Therefore, connection was not withheld without any reason. Accordingly, the District Forum was right not to award compensation and litigation expenses.

10.              Therefore, we do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.   

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

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

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

February 27, 2015.                                                    (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                Member