BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 62 of 05.09.2016
Date of decision : 21.03.2017
Baljinder Singh, son of Ajit Singh, aged about 27 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
Sh. Baljinder 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 return the security amount of Rs.4425/-
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. 6425/-. The O.P issued a gas connection bearing No.609 dated 28.09.2012. As the said connection was issued for using gas for domestic purpose only, therefore, he is the consumer of the O.P. He had deposited Rs. 4425/- 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 gave an application dated 02.01.2015 to the O.P. for return of the security amount of Rs.4425/-, but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. 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, but complainant concealed this fact from this Ld. Forum; that the complainant has never moved any application to the O.P. as alleged by him and the receiving shown on the alleged application is forged and fabricated; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that 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. On merits, it is stated that gas connection No.609 was issued to the complainant on receipt of Rs.3850/-, 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 him in the present complaint. The receiving shown on the alleged copy of alleged application is forged and fabricated. 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.C9 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 and copy of connection application form dated 28.9.2012 Ex.OP2 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, 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 complainant submitted that the complainant had approached the office of the O.P. for disconnection of gas connection in question and for refund of the security amount of Rs.4425/- deposited by him and had even made request in writing vide application dated 02.01.2015, but inspite of that the O.P. did not accede to his request. 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.4425/- to the complainant, 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 complainant never submitted application dated 02.01.2015 with the O.P for refund of security amount as alleged by the complainant and receiving shown on the alleged application is forged and fabricated. He further argued that, from the passbook, Ex.C3 and Connection application form, Ex.OP2, it is evident that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.4425/- for getting the gas connection and not Rs. 6425/- as alleged by the complainant. In the connection form, which bears thumb impression of the complainant, the refundable security amount has been mentioned as Rs.2400/- and not Rs.4425/- as alleged by the complainant. 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 and shall be one forth after the expiry of five hundred days. Since, the period of 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 security amount of Rs.600/- only. He further submitted that the 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 passbook, Ex.C3 and connection application form Ex.OP2, it is evident that complainant had deposited Rs.4425/- and not Rs.6425/- as alleged by him in the complaint. In the connection application form, the refundable amount has been mentioned as Rs.2400/-, therefore, the plea of the complainant that he is entitled to get refund of Rs.4425/- is not sustainable. Perusal of the connection 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 he applied for the refund of the security amount vide application dated 02.01.2015. 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 02.01.2015, 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 application dated 02.01.2015 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:21.03.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
