MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.    This is an appeal filed by the OPs against order dated 3.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 911 of 2009.

2.        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for a domestic gas connection with the OP but the OP before releasing the said connection put a condition before the complainant to purchase the gas burner/stove from the OP and the said gas burner/stove were at their self-mentioned rates which was much higher than the comparative rate prevailing in the market.  The aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.     Reply was filed by the OP and denied that the complainant was forced to purchase the gas burner from the gas agency and submitted that as per letter dated 20.4.2009 the complainant was told that he was free to buy his own choice of ISI Mark stove, Suraksha Hose etc. for setting up HP gas installation at his home but the complainant was failed to bring the same. It was further pleaded that the complainant purchased the gas stove at his own will and filed the present complaint just to harass the OP. Hence, it is pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions. 5.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund an amount of Rs.1590+190 = Rs.1780/- and receive back the gas burner and the pipe from the complainant, Rs.500/- as costs of litigation and Rs.1000/- as compensation for causing him harassment and adopting unfair trade practice by compelling the customers to purchase these articles from their shop. The entire amount was directed to be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.7.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

6.        Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP and stated that the learned District Forum has grossly erred in allowing the complaint in favour of respondent/complainant but the respondent/complainant has not impleaded the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as a necessary party in this case and the appellant/OP is only the agent of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the documents filed by the complainant specifically annexure II, which was filed by him on 1.5.2009 duly appended his signatures after understanding the contents and conditions for issuance of connection. The complainant is well educated person and he very well knows English and signed the annexure I and II after understanding the contents of the same. The learned District Forum has also failed to appreciate the fact that complainant neither purchased those articles and without those ISI marks such as gas stove etc. gas connection cannot be installed in the house of the complainant. It has been submitted by the appellant that Annexure I was not sent to him but it was shown to the respondent/complainant in the office. The respondent/complainant is not an illiterate person as he moved the complaint before the learned Forum without engaging any counsel. He has not reproduced the receipt before the learned District Forum that he has purchased ISI gas stove showing how much difference is between the price of the gas purchased by the respondent/complainant from the market and from the appellant/OP. The question of using the force does not arise at all as he is police constable and is well aware about the rights and duties of a citizen. The learned District Forum has observed that the signatures on annexure I was taken in hanky panky whereas the date of annexure II is 1.5.2009. The respondent/complainant played clever tactics as he came to the company on 1.5.2009 and deliberately written the date as 154.2009 under his signatures. It is submitted by the appellant that receipts were issued as per the rates supplied by HP Gas Company and appellant is only the dealer and he cannot enhance the rates or reduce the rates as provided by the company. The complainant has also made a contention that in fact such like burners are available in the market for Rs.410/- and no affidavit of any competent person is attached in order to prove the contention. Otherwise also, the rate is prescribed by the company as per the material used and quality of the product and the product of the company are ISI Mark. The imposition of Rs.500/- as litigation along with Rs.1000/- as compensation for harassment is also on the wrong side, as the complainant has contested the complaint himself. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed ad the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

7.     We have heard Sh.Ravinder Singh, respondent in person and carefully gone through the file.

8.     After hearing the respondent/complainant in person and after the perusal of the file, we have observed that as per the contention of the appellant/OP that as per recommendation letter (Annexure I) which was sent to the respondent/complainant in which it was mentioned that, you are free to buy your own choice of ISI Mark Stove, Suraksha Hose etc for setting up HP Gas installation was recommended to be purchased from the appellant/OP or any authorized HP Gas Distributor. He further contended that the consent letter (Annexure II) which was signed by the respondent/complainant mentioning that the distributor had not forced him by any means for purchasing of gas stove or any other appliances is strongly rebutted by the respondent/complainant that the recommendation letter (Annexure I) which was prepared by the appellant/OP on 15.4.2009 and on the same date his signatures were obtained on consent letter (Annexure II). It was alleged by the respondent/complainant that signatures on the various documents were obtained by the appellant/OP on the pretext of completing the formalities without telling him anything about it.  It was argued that even letter Annexure I was not sent to him but it was shown to him in the office of appellant.  Moreover it was alleged that the gas stove burner, pipe and the gas connection was issued to him on 1.5.2009 long after his signatures had already been obtained on Annexure II.  The respondent/complainant submits that on the top of letter (Annexure II) the date was incidentally mentioned as 1.5.2009 though under the signatures of the complainant this date is 15.4.2009.  It shows the hanky panky being done by the appellant/OP in getting the letter (Annexure II) signed from customers in routine without explaining the intention behind the same.  It was further submitted by the respondent/complainant that even otherwise also if no force was being used to compel the respondent/complainant to purchase the gas stove from the appellant/OP, there would not have been any need for prescribing Annexure II. Under these facts and circumstances, the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant.

9.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ambiguity in the order passed by the learned District Forum. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/respondent and it is hereby dismissed as devoid of any merit without any order as to costs.

10.        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

4^th May, 2010.