Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/561/2015

M/s Mohan Gass Distributres - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lokesh Jain s/o Munishwar Jain - Opp.Party(s)

D.M.Mathur

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 527/2015

 

Lokesh Jain s/o Munishwar Pd.Jain r/o Ward No. 15, Vivekanand Colony, Deoli ( Tonk) Rajasthan.

Vs.

M/s.Mohan Gas Distributor, Janta Colony, Deoli (Tonk) Rajasthan.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 561/2015

 

M/s.Mohan Gas Distributor, Janta Colony, Deoli (Tonk) Rajasthan.

Vs.

Lokesh Jain s/o Munishwar Pd.Jain r/o Ward No. 15, Vivekanand Colony, Deoli ( Tonk) Rajasthan.

 

Date of Order 11.9.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

2

 

Mr.Munishwar Prasad counsel for the complainant Lokesh Jain

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the gas agency

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by the learned DCF Tonk dated 9.4.2015.

 

The complainant had applied for a gas connection on 10.6.2011. His complaint is that he was not given the priority in allotting the gas connection while his brother who had simultaneously applied for the connection on the same date was given connection on 6.11.2013. On contacting the opposite party the complainant was told that his ID and address proof does not match with the ID given in the application form. The opposite party denied the allegations of any malafide and submitted that since the address of the complainant had not been verified, he was not issued the connection. However, after appearing both the parties the learned DCF ordered that the complainant would produce all the required documents before the opposite party and the opposite party would issue him a connection within seven days of submitting the documents.

 

3

 

It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant was denied connection as he refused to buy any gas burner from the agency and the agency insisted for buying the gas burner from them. The learned counsel for the agency has denied this fact. He has argued that as per the IOC regulations it is the duty of the agency to verify whether the consumer has an ISI mark gas burner and the consumer should also produce the bill of the burner. In this case the complainant failed to comply with this requirement.

 

The complainant has filed this appeal foe enhancement. It has been submitted that the complainant should be awarded compensation for mental agony undergone by him. The counsel for the agency has argued that there was no deficiency on the part of the agency. It was the duty of the agency to insist for compliance of the regulations of the IOC.

 

We have heard both the parties and after perusing the record, we find that a physical inspection was also conducted by the mechanic of the agency and he has physically verified the gas burner. As per the inspection report the complainant was not having any existing gas connection issued by any oil company. However, he was using a single burner of Raj Gas

4

 

Company. In another inspection report dated 31.1.2014, the mechanic Amit gave a favourable report for issuing the gas connection.

 

We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned DCF. The complainant has to be issued a gas connection provided he satisfies the agency about his address proof and ID as directed by the learned DCF. We do not find any reason to enhance the compensation in favour of the complainant as the learned DCF has observed that the complainant instead of going to the agency for submitting the documents filed the consumer complaint. We also do not wish to disturb the order of the learned DCF which awarded a cost of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as the agency was not completely fair in dealing with the complainant and insisted of the bill of burner which cannot be a mandatory requirement.

 

Hence both these appeals deserves to be dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

nm