DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 379 of 1.10.2018

                                      Decided on: 9.7.2021

Babu Singh son of Sawan Singh r/o H.No.17, Str. No.23, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Kuljeet Gas Service, having its office at Ghuman Road, Near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala through its Managing Director/Proprietor/Distributor for Indane Cooking Gas.
2. Indane Gas, having its Area Office at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Tel Bhawan, Plot No.6-A, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
3. Sh.Manish Gupta Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation H.No.21/2. Ranbir Marg, Patiala.
4. Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India having its office at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, 110001, through its Secretary.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.P.C.Sardana,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Harvinder Shukla,counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Names of OPs No.2to4 deleted

                                       vide order dated 10.5.2019

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Babu Singh , complainant against Kuljeet Gas Service and others(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act(for short The Act).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is consumer of Indane Cooking Gas, through OP No.1having domestic LPG cooking gas connection No.KG014598. It is averred that as per the instructions of the Govt., the annual cap on subsidized LPG cylinders was revised to 11 cylinders for the year ending 31.3.2014.It is further averred that in the financial year 2013-14, the complainant obtained 13 LPG domestic cooking gas cylinders from OP No.1. It is further averred on 8.11.2013 the complainant applied for a refill of a cylinder No.10 from the OP No.1.The same was delivered to him on 13.11.2013 by charging an amount of Rs.1001.50. Similarly on 9.12.2013, the complainant applied for a refill of a cylinder No.11 which was delivered to him by OP No.1 on 17.12.2013 after charging Rs.1071/-.It is further averred that the OP No.1 instead of charging Rs.429.50/- for the cylinder No.10& 11 had charged the excess amount from the complainant. The complainant visited OP No.1 several times for the refund of excess amount charged by it. He also sought information under Right to Information Act vide applications dated 9.4.2014 and 3.2.2014 but of no avail. It is further averred that in response to these applications, the OP No.1 issued letter 6.2.2014 intimating that as per Govt. policy of OP No.4, the complainant is entitled only 9 subsidized cylinders in the financial year 2013-14. It is further averred that he again sought information under Right to Information Act from OP No.4, who vide reply dated 27.4.2017 alongwith copy of Govt. of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi circular dated 21.4.2017 had intimated that ‘Annual cap on the subsidized domestic LPG cylinders had been raised from 9 to 11 for the year ending 31.3.2014 and now he is entitled for the refund of his subsidized amount of two cylinders. Non refund of the same by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to refund the subsidy amount of Rs.1213.50 alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f.17.12.2013 and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
3. Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. At the first instance Sh.Chiranjiv S. Kwatra appeared on behalf of OPs No.2&3 and Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal, adv. on behalf of OP No.4 but lateron the complainant present alongwith his counsel vide separate statement dated 10.5.2019 has got deleted the name of OPs No.2 to 4.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections have been raised that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is consumer of OP. It is submitted to be wrong that the complainant obtained 13 LPG domestic cooking gas cylinders from OP No.1  in the financial year 2013-14 rather he had obtained total 15 cylinders in the said financial year out of which 11 cylinders were subsidized and four cylinders were non subsidized. It is further submitted that as per Govt. policy/instructions, OP No.1 has to supply only 9 subsidized cylinders to the customers and in February 2014, the Govt. of India instructed the OPs to supply 11 subsidized domestic cylinders for the financial year 2013-14. Accordingly the complainant was supplied two more subsidized cylinders on 25.2.2014 and 20.3.2014. It is further submitted that prior to 25.2.2014 the complainant got total 13 cylinders out of which 9 subsidized cylinders were supplied to the complainant upto 19.10.2013 and thereafter complainant got 4 non subsidized cylinders on 13.11.2013, 17.12.2013,3.1.2014 and 31.1.2014.As such the OP had never charged excess amount from the complainant and when the cap of 9 subsidized cylinders was revised to 11, in February,2014, then OP No.1 supplied two more subsidized cylinders to the complainant on 25.2.2014 and 20.3.2014.There is thus no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP .After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajpal Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is consumer of OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that in the financial year 2013-14 the complainant has obtained 13 LPG domestic gas cylinders for his personal use and cylinders were delivered by charging Rs.1001.50.The ld. counsel further argued that in the financial year ending 2013-14, on 8.11.2013, the complainant applied for refill of cylinder which was delivered to him after charging Rs.1001.50 and similarly on 9.12.2013 the complainant again applied for refilling of cylinder with OP No.1 and the cylinder was delivered to him  after charging Rs.1071/-.The ld. counsel further argued that OP No.1 has charged excess amount from the complainant..The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant requested for the refund of excess amount of two cylinders which was subsidized from 3.11.2013 but of no avail.So the complaint be allowed.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complaint is time barred as the cause of action was arisen on 2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2018.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant had obtained 15 cylinders in the financial year 2013 -14 out of which 11 cylinders were subsidized and four cylinders were non subsidized.The ld. counsel further argued that as per the policy/instructions, OP No.1 has to supply only 9 subsidized cylinders to customer and in February,2014 the Govt. of India instructed to supply 11 subsidized cylinders to the customers, as such complainant was supplied two more subsidized cylinders on 25.2.2014 and 20.3.2014.The ld. counsel further argued that prior to 25.2.2014 complainant has got 13 cylinders from OP No.1 out of which 9 were subsidized cylinders. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP no.1 has not charged any excess amount from the complaint, and the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered Ex.CA his affidavit and has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the document of Kuljeet Gas dated 6.2.2014, in which it is mentioned that complainant was suppose to get 9 subsidized cylinders in a year as per data and the complainant was supplied 9 subsidized cylinders for the period 4.4.2013 to 19.10.2013 and after that complainant was not entitled to get subsidized cylinder.Ex.C1 each date is mentioned on which cylinder was supplied to the complainant and 9 cylinder were delivered on subsidized rate and 4 on non subsidized rate.Ex.C2 is passbook of the complainant of Kuljeet Gas.Ex.C3 is the receipt,Ex.C4 are the guidelines of Govt. of India Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,Ex.C5 is letter which is dated 30.1.2014 on the subject annual cap on subsidized domestic LPG cylinders vide which annual cap for the year 2013-14 has been raised from 9 to 11 subsidized LPG cylinders w.e.f. 1.2.2014,Ex.C6 is reply of letter, Ex.C7 is also reply of letter,C9 is application sent by Babu Singh,Ex.C10 is the application which was filed on 8.6.2017 before Ld. PLA, Patiala and the same was withdrawn.
12. On the other hand, Rajpal Singh has filed his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. In para no.6 of the affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has obtained 15 LPG domestic cooking gas cylinders for his personal use  from OP No.1 in the financial year 2013-14,out of which 11 cylinders were subsidized and 4 cylinders were non subsidized. As per Govt. policy OP No.1 has to supply only 9 subsidized cylinders to the customers and in February, 2014 the Govt. of India instructed the OPs to supply 11 subsidized domestic cylinders for the financial year 2013-14, as such the complainant was supplied two more subsidized cylinders on 25.2.2014 and 20.3.2014.Prior to 25.2.2014 the complainant got total 13cylinders from OP No.1 out of which 9 were subsidized cylinders   supplied by OP No.1 upto 19.10.2013. Thereafter complainant got four non subsidized cylinders on 13.11.2013, 17.12.2013, 3.1.2014 and 31.1.2014.Ex.OP1 is letter dated 30.1.2014 and Ex.OP2 is refill receipt.
13. From the documents, itself, it has been clear that the dispute pertains to the year 2013-14 but the complaint was filed in the year 2018 i.e. on 1.10.2018 after more than five years. The limitation to file a complaint before this Commission is of two years, so it is clear that the complaint is hit by the rules of Limitation Act.
14. Even otherwise in the affidavit, filed by OP No.1 Rajpal Singh he has deposed that they have supplied subsidized and non subsidized cylinders to the complainant as per rules. It is also proved that previously the complainant had filed same petition before Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat, Patiala titled Babu Singh Vs. Kuljeet Gas Service and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
15. So it is clear that the complainant has not come to the Commission within the period of limitation and the same is dismissed accordingly being barred by limitation. Parties are to bear their own costs.   

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.7.2021

                                        Vinod Kumar Gulati            Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                   President