Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/51

Amar Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ GAS SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha, Adv

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                            Consumer Complaint No. :  52 of 05.09.2016

                                               Date of decision           : 03.04.2017

 

 

Harwinder Singh, son of Malkit Singh, aged about 33 years, resident of Village Ferozpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar (Pb.)

 

                                                                                        ....Complainant

                                                    Versus

 

Raj Gas Service, Bela Ropar Road Bela, Tehsil and District Ropar, through its    proprietor. 

 

                                                                                      ...Opposite Party

 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                              Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                    MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                     SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

                    Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha Advocate and Sh. Jarnail Singh,                               Advocate, counsel for complainant

                    Sh. Manjeet Singh Nagra Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party 

 

ORDER

                              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                    Sh. Ajmer Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-

                     1)      To refund the security amount of Rs.7140/-  

                    2)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unnecessary                                 harassment faced by him including litigation expenses,

 

 2.               In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had taken LPG connection from the O.P., on deposit of Rs. 5850/-. The O.P issued a gas connection bearing No.57 dated 14.08.2012. As the said connection was issued for using gas for domestic purpose only, therefore, he is the consumer of the O.P. On 27.10.2012, he took a second cylinder for a sum of Rs.3290/-.  He had deposited Rs. 7140/- as refundable security. The O.P was not providing him the proper services, its cylinder refill rate was very high and it was not providing the subsidy as per the Govt. rules, because of it, he was not interested to avail the services of the O.P. and requested it to disconnect the gas connection. He visited the office of the O.P. many a times for the said purpose, but of no use. He moved an application dated 16.09.2013 with the O.P. for refund of security amount of Rs.7140/-, but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, he got a legal notice dated 16.04.2016 served upon the O.P., but no response to the same was given by it. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary party, as the O.P. is an authorized dealer of Prachi Gas Bottling Pvt. Ltd., but the complainant has not impleaded Prachi Gas Service Bottling Pvt. Ltd., as necessary party; that the complainant has suppressed, distorted and concealed vital and material facts, it duly replied to the legal notice dated 16.4.2016 but complainant concealed this fact from this Ld. Forum; that the complainant has never moved any application to it as alleged by him and the receiving shown on the alleged application is forged and fabricated. The complainant has played fraud with it; that as per terms and conditions of the agreement/application form after the expiry of 500 days from the date of connection, ¼ amount of the refundable security i.e. 600 is refundable to the consumer and it is ready and willing to refund the same to the complainant right from the beginning when the demand was made by the complainant; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is stated that gas connection No.57 was issued to the complainant on receipt of Rs.3850/- from the complainant, out of which refundable security was of Rs.2400/ only, subject to terms and conditions of the application form/agreement. The O.P. is providing proper and satisfactory services to its customers. The rates of the refill of the gas cylinders is as per the directions of the Prachi Gas Bottelling service private limited, which has not been impleaded as a party by the complainant in the present complaint. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.

4.                          On being put to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.C1 and various other documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar, authorized signatory of Raj Gas Service Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. argued that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non joinder of necessary party i.e Prachi Gas Bottlling Pvt. Ltd because the O.P. is the dealer of the said company. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the complainant had taken the gas connection in question from the O.P. by depositing the requisite charges including security amount with it and security is also to be refunded by it only, after disconnecting the said connection. Therefore, there was no need to implead Prachi Gas Bottling Pvt. Ltd, as a party, in the complaint.

                   From the copy of connection application form, Ex.OP2, it is           evident that the O.P. is the dealer of Prachi Gas Bottling Pvt. Ltd, but at the same time, this fact cannot be denied that the complainant had paid the   requisite charges including the security amount to the O.P., which had issued      the LPG connection to him, therefore, it is also the duty of the O.P. to        disconnect the said connection and refund the permissible security amount,       as applied for by him and for the said purpose, impleading Prachi Gas         Bottling Pvt. Ltd, as party in the complaint, was not necessary, therefore, the       objection raised by the O.P. to that effect is not sustainable, hence, rejected.

Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 14.08.2015, complainant paid a sum of Rs.5850/- to the O.P., for taking gas connection bearing No.57 from it. On 27.10.2012, he had taken a second cylinder from the O.P. by paying an amount of Rs.3290/-. As he got disconnected his gas connection, the O.P. was liable to refund the security amount of Rs.7140/- but it had not refunded the said amount, which amounts to deficiency in rendering service. The O.Ps. is thus, not only liable to refund the security amount of Rs. 7140/- but also is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses, as prayed for in the complaint.

        On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P vehemently argued that from the passbook, Ex.C5 and connection application form, Ex.OP2, it is evident that for getting the gas connection, complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.3850/- and not Rs.5850/- as alleged by the complainant. At the time of taking the second cylinder, complainant paid a sum of Rs.3290/-, which is not refundable as is evident from retail invoice dated 27.10.2012, Ex.C6. He further argued that complainant never submitted application dated 16.09.2013, for refund of the security amount with the O.P., and the receiving shown on the said application, which is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C2 is forged and fabricated.  In the connection application form, Ex.OP2, which is duly signed by the complainant, the refundable security amount has been mentioned as Rs.2400/-. At the bottom of the said form, there is a specific note to the effect that the refundable amount shall be half after the expiry of three hundred days. Since, the period of the five hundred days have already elapsed from the date of connection, therefore, as per terms and conditions of connection application form, complainant is entitled to receive the security amount of Rs.600/- only. Vide reply dated 26.4.2016, to the legal notice dated 16.4.2016, the complainant was asked to receive the security amount after depositing the articles on any day during the working hours. But the complainant did not turn up, hence, he has no locus standi to file the present complaint, same be dismissed with cost, being without merits.

7.                From the perusal of passbook, Ex.C5 and the connection application form, Ex.OP2, it is evident that the complainant had deposited Rs.3850/- and not Rs.5850/- as alleged by him in the complaint. The plea of the complainant is that he is entitled to get the refund of amount of Rs.7140/- i.e. a sum of Rs.3850/- the refundable amount paid by him at the time of taking gas connection + Rs.3290/- the amount paid on 27.10.2012, at the time of taking second cylinder. From the invoice dated 27.10.2012, Ex.C6, it is evident that the complainant paid Rs.3290/-, for taking a cylinder from the O.P. but nothing has been mentioned on the said invoice regarding refund of any amount, therefore, the plea of the complainant that he is entitled to get the refund of Rs.3290/-, is not tenable. In the connection application form, which is duly signed by the complainant, the refundable amount has been mentioned as Rs.2400/-. At the bottom of the said connection application form, there is specific note to the effect that “refundable amount shall be half after the expiry of three hundred days and shall be one forth after the expiry of five hundred days”. The plea of the complainant is that he applied for the refund of the security amount vide application dated 16.09.2013. Whereas the stand of the O.P. is that it never received any application from the complainant regarding refund of the security amount as alleged by the complainant and the receiving shown on the alleged copy of application is forged and fabricated. On perusal of application dated 16.09.2013, Ex.C2, it is found that there is no receiving on it. The complainant has not placed on record, any document from which it can be inferred that the said application has been received by the O.P. Even, it is not the case of the complainant that it had sent the said application to the O.P. through registered post. As such, complainant has failed to prove that he had submitted the said application with the O.P. and it refused to refund the security amount. It may be stated that five hundred days have elapsed from the date of connection, therefore, as per terms and conditions, complainant is entitled to receive refundable security amount of Rs.600/-. The learned counsel for the O.P. stated at bar that the O.P. is still ready to refund the said amount, subject to return of the items by the complainant, against which security was taken. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to O.P. to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.

8.                    The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties          forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules. The file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated: 03.04.2017                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER.