Present:-

              For the appellant         : Sh.Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate

    For respondent No.1            : Sh.Surinder Garg, Advocate

    For respondent No.2        &3: Sh.Somesh Gupta, Advocate

    For respondent No.4     : Ex-parte

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER :

           This appeal has been preferred by appellant (‘opposite party No.2’ in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against respondent No.1, being complainant in the complaint, respondent No.2-3 being opposite parties in the complaint, challenging order dated 13.06.2011 in C.C. No. 48 of 2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short the ‘District Forum’), vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was partly accepted with the direction to the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment  and litigation expenses within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order failing which the opposite party No. 2 shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 3,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order in this complaint till realization of the amount.

2.                The brief facts of the case are that Smt.Kailash Rani, complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the opposite parties on the averments that  she was the holder of LPG connection No. 3709 with the opposite parties, so she is consumer of the opposite parties. Earlier, the complainant was resident of Village Jhotiwala and in the month of July, 2010 she purchased house No. BIV/95 in Uchhi Gali, Faridkot and shifted her residence to Faridkot.  It was further pleaded in the complaint that said connection was in the name of the complainant with the opposite party No. 2 for a long time, as the complainant was residing at Village Jhotiwala, so the connection was applied with Jain Gas Agency of Faridkot in the year 1998, when the Gurinder Gas was not even in existence and when Gurinder Gas came into existence, the Indian Oil Corporation at its own level, transferred the new booking to Gurinder Gas in the year 2009 on 15.7.2009.  The Indian Oil Corporation had verified the connection of the complainant and her Ration Card of Village Jhoti Wala was  also submitted, which was admitted as correct by the above corporation.  It was further pleaded in the complaint that she was residing at Village Jhotiwala, so the refill of LPG was being supplied at the address of Mangat Arora, the son of the complainant, who is residing at Faridkot. The opposite parties were deliberately harassing the complainant because the son of the complainant raised his voice against the illegalities done by the opposite party No. 2 regarding booking of refills and release of new connections in an irregular manner. The opposite party No. 2 always supplied LPG refills very late and due to this fact, there was scarcity of LPG in the house of the complainant.   It was further alleged in the complaint that OP No.2 refused to book refill before expiry of 21 days as per rules of oil companies.  Refill can be booked after 24 hours of delivery of the previous refill.   It was pleaded that the son of the complainant rang up the Gurinder Gas on 16.12.2010 from his mobile phone No. 9915502939 to the official phone of Gurinder Gas Agency for booking of refill for the connection of the complainant and the same call was duly recorded there.   It was alleged that the employees of Gurinder Gas and even Mr. Dollar, the person claiming to be the owner of the Gas Agency flatly, refused to book refill and when son of the complainant revealed that the call was being recorded, he stated that the refill has been booked.  However, no booking number was given in spite of demand so raised.  It wasfurther stated that booking number would be given in the evening as the booking has been made manually. It was being expected that the refill will be supplied within 7/8 days, but the same was not supplied till 27.12.2010,  when the son of the complainant again called the agency on its official number from his mobile and asked for supply of refill and this time, the dealing lady told that refill had not been booked and would be booked after four days. Then, it transpired that refill booking was not made by the agency on 16.12.2010.  Thereafter, when the son of the complainant asked the opposite party No. 2 to book refill after expiry of six days from the date of previous supply, there was refusal by opposite party, so a complaint was submitted to District Administration about it.  It was further pleaded in the complaint that on 13.1.2011, the son of the complainant booked a refill of LPG and booking number 4423 was allotted, but no refill has been supplied till the filing of the complaint.  The son of the complainant wrote complaint at Toll Free Number of opposite party No. 3, but no action has been taken thereon.  He also informed the opposite party no. 1 about non-delivery of refill, but to no avail, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by them.  It is prayed that the  direction be issued to the opposite parties to supply the refill of LPG to the complainant besides awarding the amount of  Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

3.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties No.1,3&4 through registered post, but none appeared on their behalf, so the opposite parties No.1,3&4 were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 20.04.2011.  The opposite party No.2 filed the written reply taking preliminary objection that the complainant through her son earlier got filed complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, which was entrusted to the Assistant Commissioner, Grievances, Faridkot on the allegations of not providing the refilled LPG cylinders. The opposite party appeared before the then Assistant Commissioner, Grievances, Faridkot on 12.1.2011 and on 17.1.2011 during the pendency of the complaint, the said officer ordered to discontinue the supply of LPG refill cylinders and on 28.1.2011 and then he filed the complaint. The  opposite party had stopped supplying the refilled gas cylinders, as per the orders of Assistant Commissioner, Grievances, Faridkot and the said order has not  been challenged anywhere by the complainant, so the instant complaint may be dismissed.  The son of the complainant is a leading Advocate, who has been getting two other LPG connections bearing No. 6607 and 52857 from M/s Jain Gas Agency, Faridkot and the refilled LPG cylinders, which was registered with the opposite party and was also being supplied in the same premises of the son of the complainant, whereas as per law,  a consumer cannot have more than one connection in one premises; during the peak winter season in 2010-11 and due to scarcity of domestic gas, so Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot considering the situation vide his order dated 21.1.2011 has specifically ordered that considering the problem of public at large, the gas cylinders be booked after 21 days of its supply to the customer and the said orders are binding throughout the District upon the gas agencies as well as the consumers, which was endorsed to the answering opposite party through District Food and Civil Supply Controller, Faridkot and the opposite party is bound to act accordingly. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was holder of LPG Gas connection No. 3709, but after passing of the order dated 17.1.2011, she did not remain the consumer of the opposite party. It is further submitted that no illegalities were ever committed by the opposite party regarding booking of refills and release of new connections as alleged. There was never any refusal on the part of the opposite party for booking the refill gas cylinders, as alleged in the complaint. The complainant got the refill gas cylinder on 10.12.2010 and the same was supplied on the same day and there was never any demand on 16.12.2010, as alleged in the complaint. It was admitted that on 13.1.2011 the refilled gas connection was booked against booking No. 4423, but as on 17.1.2011, an order for disconnecting the supply of LPG refill cylinders was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Grievances, Faridkot, so in compliance with the same, the cylinder was not delivered.  In this way, there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 2. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for by the opposite party.

4.                The cdomplainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of ration card Ex.C2, copy of blue book Ex.C3, copy of customer history card Ex.C4, copy of application Ex.C5, copy of ration card Ex.C6, copy of voter card Ex.C7, copy of application Ex.C8, affidavit of Mangat Arora Ex.C9, copy of delivery slip dated 17.4.2011 Ex.C10, copy of complaint dated 28.12.2010 Ex.C11, copy of rejoinder 28.1.2011 Ex.C12, copy of sale deed Ex.C13 and closed her evidence.  On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence copy of reply filed by Gurinder Gas Agency Ex.R1, copy of customer history card Ex.R2, copy of application Ex.R3, copy of ration card Ex.R4, copy of voter card Ex.R5, copy of complaint and orders Ex.R8 and Ex.R9, copy of complaint dated 28.12.2010 Ex.R6, copy of complaint against Gurinder Gas Ex.R7, customer history card Ex.R10, affidavit of Gurinder Singh Bawa Ex.R11,copy of ration card Ex.R12, copy of order passed by ADC, Faridkot Ex.R13 and closed their evidence.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite party No.2  to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses within a period of month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the opposite party No.2 shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs.3,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order.  Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.2 has filed this appeal against the same.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record of the case.   Perusal of the record shows that the gas connection No.3709 was allotted to the complainant on 06.11.1998, which is proved on record vide Ex.C-3 by the opposite party No.2.  Customer History Card shows that the complainant got the refilled cylinder on 10.12.2012 as Ex.C-4.  As per the version of the complainant and as per the rules, after supply of LPG Cylinder for LPG Gas, the refill booking can be made after 24 hours of delivery of the previous refill.  This fact is admitted by the opposite party No.2 in para 3 of supply vide Ex.R-1, which is proved on record.  On 16.12.2010 through Mobile No.99155-02939 for booking of refill of gas connection was made by the son of the complainant, but the opposite party No.2 flatly refused to book the same.  When the son of the complainant revealed that the call was being tapped and then the refill had been booked, but no booking was made and the cylinder was not supplied till 27.12.2010.  On 13.01.2010, the son of the complainant booked a refill of LPG and booking number 4423 was allotted, but despite waiting for 7-8 days, no refill was supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties. 

6.                On the other hand, version of the opposite party No.2 is that the supply of refills of LPG was restored to the complainant from 01.04.2011.  In the light of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, vide Ex.R-13, a period 21 days have been fixed for booking of refill of LPG.  The perusal of the record shows that the factum of the restoration of supply of LPG cylinder to the complainant on 01.04.2011 is not disputed by the complainant.  Controversy which has remained to be resolved is whether the action of the opposite party No.2 in not booking the refill of LPG, despite the request of the complainant on 16.12.2010 and it proves the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2.  We have perused Ex.R-13, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 21.01.2011, in which, it was directed that the booking of refill of LPG be made after a period of 21 days from the receipt of refill of LPG.  As per version of the complainant, the booking has been made within 24 hours after supply of refill cylinder.  However, the opposite party No.2 had not disputed the facts in their written statement and further no effective rebuttal to the allegation of the booking refill of LPG on16.12.2010 is forthcoming in the face of specific reference of official phone number and CD recording of conversation on the side of the complainant.  The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner on 21.0.2011 was to continue till 31.3.2011 and the complainant can get booking of LPG made strictly within the period prescribed under the rules in future.  Correct findings were recorded by the District Forum and there is no merit in the appeal.   

7.                Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal of the appellants/opposite parties is dismissed.  The order of the District Forum is upheld in this appeal.

8.                The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. The amount of Rs.1,500/- alongwith interest, which accrued, if any thereon, be remitted by the registry to the respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent No.1/complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

9.                The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

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

February 19,2015