STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Appeal No.388 of 2010) Date of Institution : 21.10.2010 Date of Decision : 30.03.2011 Premier Gas Service, SCO No.13, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. ……Appellant V e r s u sRajeshwari Tripathi w/o Sh. Sadashiv Tripathi r/o House No.41, Police Line, Sector 26, Chandigarh. ….Respondent BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. H.S. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Rajeshwari Tripathi, respondent in person PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.9.2010 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the OP (now appellant) was directed to issue a second gas cylinder to the complainant (now respondent) on payment, as per norms and, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service. It was further directed that in case the amount of compensation was not paid within thirty days, the amount shall be paid with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment. 2. The complainant is a consumer of the OP vide consumer No.633733. She made a booking for the supply of a filled gas cylinder with the OP on 28.4.2010. She made many requests, for the delivery of the filled gas cylinder, but to no avail. It was stated that the complainant was having only one gas cylinder, and, as soon as the same finished, on account of non supply of a newly filled gas cylinder, she felt harassed. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by the OP, left with no alternative, she filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. None put in appearance, on behalf of the OP, despite due service and, as such, it was proceeded against exparte. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the OP/appellant. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent in person and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant/OP was wrongly proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, as no representative of the OP, was present at the address given, when the summons were sent for service nor he was duly served. He further submitted that the appellant delivered the gas cylinder, in the name of the consumer on 29.4.2009, and the slip was signed by one Ashish, who received the same. It was further submitted by him that after verification, it was found that the cylinder of the consumer, had been delivered, at the wrong address, due to clerical mistake. It was further submitted by him that after verifying the same, again the filled gas cylinder was delivered to the complainant/respondent on 9.5.2010. It was further submitted that, as such, there was no negligence or intentional default on the part of the OP/appellant or its official. He further submitted that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, and, as such, the order passed by the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the respondent, submitted that the OP was duly served, but none appeared, on its behalf, either in person or through counsel on 14.6.2010, and, as such, it was rightly proceeded against exparte. She further submitted that the OP itself admitted that the gas cylinder, which was booked, by the complainant/respondent on 28.4.2010, was not delivered at her address, but was delivered to somebody else at wrong address. She further submitted that, on account of the negligence of the OP/appellant or its employees, the complainant/respondent had to suffer a lot, as she was having only one gas cylinder and in the absence of delivery of duly filled gas cylinder, within the reasonable time, after booking, one could imagine her plight as the cooking was impossible without the gas. She further submitted that there was, therefore, deficiency, in rendering service on the part of the appellant. She further submitted that, ultimately, against the booking, made by the complainant/respondent, on 28.4.2010, she was delivered the duly filled cylinder in June 2010. She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The first question that falls for determination, is, as to whether, the OP/appellant was duly served, in the complaint, and was rightly proceeded against exparte, when none appeared on its behalf on the date fixed. The perusal of the record of the District Forum clearly goes to show that for 14.6.2010, the OP was duly served. The case was called a number of times, but none appeared on behalf of the OP, either in person, or through Counsel. It was, under these circumstances, that the OP was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum. The complaint was, ultimately, decided on 16.9.2010 and in between 14.6.2010 and 16.9.2010, 3 dates were given for evidence and arguments of the complainant, but no effort was made by the OP, to put in appearance, before the District Forum and submit that it was wrongly proceeded against exparte. As stated above, the OP was rightly proceeded against exparte, when none appeared, on its behalf, despite due service. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. The next question, that falls for determination, is, as to whether, there was deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP/appellant, as a result whereof, the complainant/respondent was harassed. Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of the OP vide consumer No.633733. There is also no dispute about the factum, that the complainant/respondent made a booking for the supply of a filled gas cylinder with the OP on 28.4.2010. It is the admitted case of the OP/appellant that the filled gas cylinder, against this booking, was not delivered, at the residence of the complainant, but on the other hand, was delivered, at some wrong address and one Ashish, not at all connected with the complainant/respondent, received the same. The argument of the Counsel for the appellant, to this effect, that the wrong address was fed in the computer, by its officials, resulting into delivery of the filled gas cylinder against the aforesaid booking, at the wrong address, does not absolve the OP of its responsibility. The filled gas cylinder against the booking dated 28.4.2010, was supplied to the complainant in June 2010. This means that there was negligence, on the part of the OP or its officials. The OP was thus clearly deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant, as a result whereof she suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that it was a fit case in which compensation should be awarded, and at the same time the OP should be directed to supply second gas cylinder to the complainant, on payment, as per norms. There is no illegality or perversity, in the order of the District Forum, warranting the interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. 12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 30th March 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
