BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 53 of 05.09.2016
Date of decision : 03.04.2017
Babli wife of Dalip Singh, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar (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
Smt. Babli 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.2400/-
2) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment faced by her including litigation expenses,
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she had taken LPG connection from the O.P., on deposit of Rs. 4400/-. The O.P issued a gas connection bearing No.1082 dated 19.11.2012. As the said connection was issued for using gas for domestic purpose only, therefore, she is the consumer of the O.P. She had deposited Rs. 2400/- as refundable security. The O.P was not providing her 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, she was not interested to avail the services of the O.P. and requested it to disconnect the gas connection. She visited the office of the O.P. many a times for the said purpose, but of no use. She moved an application dated 02.01.2014 to the O.P. for return of the security amount of Rs.2400/-, but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, she got a legal notice dated 29.03.2016 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 18.3.2016 but complainant concealed this fact from this Ld. Forum; that the complainant has never moved any application to the O.P. as alleged by her and the receiving shown on the alleged application is forged and fabricated; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is stated that gas connection No.1082 was issued to the complainant on and sum of Rs.3850/- was received by it, 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. It is further stated that the complainant has never moved any application to the O.P. as alleged by her in the present complaint. The receiving shown on the alleged copy of alleged application is forged and fabricated. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement/application connection form, after expiry of 500 days from the date of connection, ¼ amount of the refundable security i.e. Rs.600/- is refundable to the consumer and O.P. was ready and willing to refund the same to the complainant right from the beginning when the demand was made by the complainant. 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 also documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has also tendered affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar, authorized signatory of Raj Gas Service Ex.OP1 and also documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on 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 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 disconnection. 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 her, 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 her 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 the complainant had approached the office of the O.P. for disconnection of the gas connection in question and for refund of the security amount of Rs.2400/- deposited by her and had even made request in writing vide application dated 02.01.2014, but inspite of that the O.P. did not accede to his request. Even it had not given any response to the legal notice dated 29.03.2016 served upon it. The said act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in rendering service, therefore, it is not only liable to refund the security amount of Rs.2400/-, but is also liable to pay compensation & litigation expenses to him, as prayed for in the complaint. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that the complainant never submitted application dated 02.01.2014 with it for the refund of the security amount as alleged by the complainant and the receiving shown on the application dated 02.01.2014, placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C2 is forged and fabricated. He further argued that as per the connection application form, Ex.OP2, which bears thumb impression of the complainant, the refundable security amount has been mentioned Rs. 2400/-. At the bottom of the said form, there is specific note to the effect that the refundable amount shall be half after the expiry of three hundred days and shall be one forth after the expiry of five hundred days. Since, period of five hundred days have already elapsed from the date of connection, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the application form, complainant is entitled for refund of security amount of Rs.600/- only he further argued that O.P. is still ready to refund the said amount, on return of the items by the complainant against which security was taken. He prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs, being devoid of merits.
7. From the perusal of the connection application form Ex.OP2, it is evident that complainant had deposited Rs.4425/-. Further perusal of the said application form reveals that at the bottom of 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 she applied for the refund of the security amount vide application dated 02.01.2014. 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 02.01.2014, Ex.C2, it is found that initials of some person are there, but neither the name nor designation of the person, who had received the said application on behalf of the O.P. has been mentioned on it, nor it bears stamp of the O.P., in the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the said application has been received by the O.P. and it refused to refund the security amount. As per the O.P. five hundred days have elapsed from the date of connection, therefore, as per terms and conditions, complainant is entitled to receive refundable security amount Rs.600/-. In the reply, Ex.OP3 to the legal notice dated 29.03.2016, complainant was asked to receive the said amount after returning the items, against which security was taken but the complainant did not turn up. 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.
