Delhi

StateCommission

A/225/2017

KRISHAN KISHOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SURYA GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  23.08.2017

Date of Decision : 01.09.2017

Appeal No. 225/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated09.06.2016   passed in Complaint Case No. 410/13 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-VII)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Krishan Kishore,

S/o Sh. Ram lal Gupta,

R/o 117, K-I extn. Gurudwara Road,

Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.                                                                          ........Appellant

 

VERSUS

M/s. Surya Gas Agency,

Shop No.9,

Jagbir Singh Market,

Near Krishna Mandir Najafgarh,

New Delhi-11004.                                                                                       ...…Respondent

 

CORAM

 

SH. O. P. GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

Present  :   Sh. Umesh Kumar Dubey, Counsel for the Appellant.

 

PER  :  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the orders dated 11.07.2016 passed by the District Fora-VII, Govt. of Delhi, holding OP guilty of deficiency of service and directing them to ensure timely delivery of gas cylinder and compensation as of Rs.2,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kishore, for short appellant, has preferred an appeal in this commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against M/s Surya Gas Agency, for short respondent, assailing the said order and praying for enhancement of compensation.

          Facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of appeal, are these.

          The appellant/complainant, resident of New Delhi, holder of the gas connection bearing number 11324 in his name, had booked for a gas cylinder with the OP/respondent. Gas Agency, the delivery of which was not done even after substantial period time. The complainant again booked the cylinder on 03.04.2013 but then also delivery was done after 7-8 days.  This according to the complainant, amounts to deficiency of service by the OP for which OPs certainly liable.

          The District Fora where the complaint was originally filed was convinced that the OP was partly deficient, have ordered for compensation to the extent of Rs.2,000/- an amount which according to the complainant is too less to meet the ends of justice and consequently this appeal has been filed praying for, inter-alia, enhancement of the compensation.

          This matter was listed before us for  admission hearing on 23.08.2017 when the Ld. Counsel appeared and advanced his arguments and perused the records as available. We have given our careful consideration to the prayer made in this appeal.  The relief made are as under :

1. Delivery of gas cylinder on time.
2. Compensation of  Rs.90,000/-.
3. Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that District Fora has failed to appreciate the plight of the poor complainant despite they having been satisfied about the deficiency  on the part of the OP.  His further argument is that the compensation awarded is too less.

          We have given our careful consideration to the matter.  The first prayer of the complainant for delivery of the gas cylinder stands already answered inasmuch as by the admission of the complainant delivery of the cylinder at a later date was done within the time found to be normal. Secondly about the claim of the complainant for enhanced compensation, we find there exists no merit on substance.  We are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Fora  in the impugned order is just and proper. It does not call for our interference.  The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Surender Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home-IV (2010) CPJ 199 – has hold

“Compensation has to be reasonable. It is not to enrich the consumer.”

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. We order accordingly. 

A copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case as required statutorily and to the District Fora for information.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                     MEMBER                                         MEMBER (JUDICIAL)                                         

                               

 

245.