DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> <br /> CC.No. 339 of 10.11.2009<br /> Decided on 19.02.2010<br /> <br /> Vinod Bansal (Samaj Sewi) R/o Mandir Wali Gali, Near Geeta Bhawan, Rampura Phul.<br /> .........Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> Parmveer Gas Agency R/o Near PWD Office, Near Bus Stand, Rampura Phul through its Prop. Sukhminder Singh.<br /> .........Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh.M.L.Bansal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for opposite party.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is resident of Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. He is holder of gas connection of the opposite party. He alleges that he has been harassed by the opposite party by not supplying the refill even after booking and the gas cylinders are being sold by it on black i.e. by charging extra amount. Earlier the refill was being supplied after a gap of 20 days whereas, now it is not being supplied even after a gap of two months. Moreover, opposite parties is charging Rs. 335/- from refill as against slip/receipt of Rs. 325/- and in this way it is cheating the general public. Hence, this complaint for providing justice to him.<br /> 2. In their reply, the opposite party pleaded that there is no complaint against the opposite party about the mismanagement as alleged rather all residents of locality are satisfied with their services. The true story is that the complainant is blackmailer and used to threatened being alleged social worker only to get the cylinder by creating havoc. The complainant is running business of selling cylinders in black market by getting three gas connections in the name of different persons in the same house whereas, according to law no person can get two gas connections in the same house. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. In order to prove his allegations, complainant filed his own affidavits dated 16.12.2009 and dated 27.12.2004 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-23 and also brought on record photocopies of cash memo Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-20 to Ex.C-21, photocopy of S.V.No.655178 Ex.C-6, photocopy of letter Ex.C-7, photocopy of Ration Card of Hem Raj Ex.C-8, photocopy of Ration Card of Vinod Kumar Ex.C-9, photocopy of recovery voucher of Sarita Devi Ex.C-10, photocopies of consumer card Ex.C-11 & Ex.C-12, photocopies of letter Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-26, photocopy of Form A Ex.C-15, photocopy of cutting of newspaper Ex.C-16 & Ex.C-18, photocopy of letter dated 14.11.2007 Ex.C-17, photocopy of visiting card Ex.C-19 and photocopy of letter Ex.C-22.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party filed affidavit of Sh.Sukhminder Singh Ladi dated 21.01.2010 Ex.R-36 and also brought on record photocopy of booking detail Ex.R-1, photocopies of delivery receipt Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-3, photocopies of booking and delivery slip Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-13, photocopy of order 2000 dated 20.07.2000, containing 5 pages Ex.R-14, photocopies of pumphlet Ex.R-15 to Ex.R-16, photocopies of letter Ex.R-17 to Ex.R-20, photocopy of letter dated 28.04.2009 Ex.R-21, photocopies of letter Ex.R-22 to Ex.R-33, photocopy of D.D.R. Ex.R-34 and photocopy of letter Ex.R-35 respectively.<br /> 5. There are general allegation of deficiency in service and black marketing of gas cylinder against the opposite party. There is also the general allegation that gas cylinders are not supplied to the public within two months even after booking whereas earlier they were generally supplied within 20 days thereafter. Another general allegation is that a sum of Rs.335/- is received from the consumer whereas, the receipt of Rs. 325/- being issued to the consumer in the name of home delivery. Another general allegation is that there is no home gas delivery of gas agencies. No specific allegation as to whom, the opposite party sold the gas cylinder in the black market, or supplied them late or received excess amount. There is also no proof that selling any cylinder in black market or excess charging of money. One more allegation in the complaint is that the gas agency owner namely Parmveer and others do not supply them their Internet. No provision of law produced on record regarding the supply of different internet numbers by the gas agencies to the consumer. Therefore, the allegations continued in the complaint are without any merit. <br /> 6. The complainant produced an affidavit in support his allegations of the complaint. The perusal of this affidavit shows that he had introduced a new story regarding possession of three cylinders by his family members. He had stated in his affidavit that he and his son having two separate residences. Therefore, they have two separate gas cylinders. He has also stated that third gas cylinder is in the name of Sarita Devi who has got this connection transferred from Jammu & Kashmir whereas, she was married at Rampura Phul. He has pleaded in his affidavit that the opposite party has illegally stopped supply of gas to all the abovesaid three connection holders. It appears that he filed his affidavit in reply to the written statement filed by opposite party wherein, it was alleged that he was running the racket of selling the cylinder in black market by way of having three connections in the name of three different persons. There are allegations in the written reply that the complainant is having criminal record and has been making false complaint to extrot money. Therefore, on the basis of written reply, the complainant in his affidavit justifying the holding of above said three gas connections. But the fact remains that the allegations are counter allegations which are beyond the scope of allegations of the complainant. Therefore, it is again reiterated that the complaint has no merit and is hereby dismissed without any order of cost. <br /> 7. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI)<br /> 19.02.2010 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER