Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/106/2021

Raj Kuma Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sabharwal Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	106 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	16.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	26.07.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate, son of Sh. Hans Raj, Aged 58 years, r/o House No.5-B, Army Flats, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh (now at House No.65, Ground Floor, Vasant Vihar, Phase-I, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali).

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

Sabharwal Gas Agency, SCO No.55, 1st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY :-  

 

None for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate (appellant herein), against order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby his consumer complaint bearing No.371 of 2019 has been dismissed.

2]                The facts of the case, as culled out from the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Ld. District Commission are as under:-

“1.     The facts in brief are, complainant was consumer of the OP having consumer No.620059 which was issued at his previous address i.e. H.No.5-B, Army Flats, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. On 11.10.2018, the complainant shifted to House No.65, Vasant Vihar, Phase-1, Dhakoli, Zirakpur Mohali. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP to transfer the gas connection on the new address, but, it stated that it was a long procedure and it had to seek approval of the Regional Office of HP Gas.  Due to that, the refill booked by complainant 29.10.2018, 26.11.2018, 24.12.2018 and 10.2.2019 were delivered at his previous address and he had to come from Dhakoli with empty cylinder and wait for a long time to obtain refill. As per the complainant, he requested the OP and its staff a number of times and at one time it told to come on Tuesday and on other occasions asked to come between 3-4 p.m. Lastly on 7.5.2019, the complainant moved application to the OP with copy to RO of HP Gas. He also sent original voucher, original passbook etc. issued by the OP vide registered post on 8.5.2019, but, the OP refused to accept the same. Ultimately the RO of HP Gas Chandigarh sent a transfer voucher to Sohi Gas Service on 8.5.2019 from where the complainant received new gas copy.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.

2.      OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the fact that the complainant was its consumer. However, it has been denied that the complainant ever informed the OP about shifting from Chandigarh to Dhakoli prior to 7.5.2019. Averred, for the first time letter dated 7.5.2019 was sent for transfer of gas connection to Sohi Gas Service, Mohali which was affected on 8.5.2019. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.”

3]                The order of Ld. District Commission, dismissing his complaint, has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the letter sent by the appellant is still part of the Ld. District Commission, which has not been opened by the Ld. District Commission and on the said envelop, the postman had specifically reported that the respondent refused to accept the letter and further reported that the owner is not in the office and only owner can accept the letter. It has further been stated that the report of the Postman is per se admissible report and need not to be proved. It has further been stated that the Gas connection was got transferred by Regional Office at Chandigarh and even after the transfer and decision of Ld. District Commission, till today, neither any intimation nor any original paper has been sent to the gas agency at Dera Bassi by the respondent. Lastly, it has further been stated that the order of the Ld. District Commission being not sustainable in the eyes of law be set aside.

4]                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the appellant failed to place on record the request letter in respect of transfer of connection from respondent to Sohi Gas Service and the appellant received the delivery of gas cylinders as per routine. It has further been stated that the request letter of the appellant was entertained same day just after receipt of the same i.e. 08.05.2019, thus, question of deficiency in service does not arise. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of appeal has been made.

5]                It may be stated here that in pursuance to notice issued in this appeal, Sh. Pawan Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent on 10.03.2022 by filing his Vakalatnama, however, none appeared on behalf  of the appellant on the said date. The case was adjourned to 28.04.2022, on which date, again none appeared on behalf of the appellant, however, Sh. Danishwar Ali, Advocate appeared as proxy for Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. However, written arguments on behalf of the appellant were received on 06.05.2022. On the next date of hearing i.e. 05.07.2022, Sh. Raj Kumar Bhatia, appellant himself appeared in person and Sh. Danishwar Ali, Advocate again appeared as proxy for Sh. Pawan Kumar, Sharma, Advocate for the respondent and filed written arguments on behalf of the respondent.  The appellant also made certain submission before us but on the request of the Proxy Counsel for the respondent, the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2022. On the said date i.e.12.07.2022, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant nor there was any representation on behalf of the respondent and thus, on the basis of written arguments already filed by the parties, the appeal was reserved for orders.

6]                After going through the rival contentions in written arguments filed by the parties and the record of Ld. District Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  Perusal of record of the Ld. District Commission transpires that there is a closed envelop attached in the record, which as per the appellant, contains his request letter dated 07.05.2019 for transfer of gas connection, alongwith original documents. The appellant submitted that he wrote the said letter to the respondent through regd. AD post, which was not accepted and returned as such. Seeing the said envelop, it transpires that the said envelop, though placed on record of Ld. District Commission by the appellant, has not been even opened by the Ld. District Commission. However, we have opened the said envelop. It contained the request letter dated 07.05.2019 written by the appellant for transfer of gas connection bearing No.620059 SV No.9502849, to the respondent (Sabharwal Gas Agency, SCO 55, First Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh). Alongwith this letter, the appellant had annexed original SV Voucher/Form bearing Sr. No.9502849, original Domestic Gas Consumer Card having Consumer No.9502849 and photocopies of his Enrolment card/No. of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh as an Advocate &  Aadhar Card as identity proof and sale deed of House House No.65, Ground Floor, Vasant Vihar, Phase-I, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali). This very letter was sent by the appellant to the respondent through registered post on 08.05.2019. However, the same was received back undelivered with the remarks of the concerned Postman that on going to the S.C.O. No.55, First Floor of Sabharwal Gas Company, they have refused to accept the envelop and they have said that the person, who is owner of this Company, can only receive the envelop and he is not available here and due to this reason, the envelop is being returned. This endorsement made by the concerned Postman is dated 10.05.2019 at 12:20. However, the said envelop also bears one more endorsement dated 09.05.2019 stating “NOT Met”. However, this endorsement is not signed. Thus, it is established on record that the respondent or its employees were having no intention from the day one to entertain the request of the appellant. Further, it was the specific case of the appellant that the gas connection was got transferred by Regional Office at Chandigarh and even after the transfer and decision of Ld. District Commission, till today, neither any intimation nor any original papers have been sent to the gas agency at Dera Bassi by the respondent.

7]                Thus, it can very well be inferred from the factual position on record that the respondent – Gas Agency intentionally did not accept the request letter of the appellant for the transfer of gas connection and returned the same to harass him. The staff of the respondent was well very available in the respondent office and they could accept the request letter of the appellant. However, their act of returning the request letter sent vide envelop aforesaid, is certainly a willful and wrong act on their part with malafide intention to harass their own consumer. By seeing the attitude of the respondent towards the appellant, it can very well be said that prior to the aforesaid written request dated 07.05.2019, the personal requests of the appellant for transfer of gas connection would not fall on the deaf ears of the respondent, as a result whereof, despite shifting to his new house, he had to collect the gas cylinder umpteen number of times from the previous accommodation, which put him in immense difficulty and physical torment. It may also be added here that during the pendency of the appeal, it was suggested by the appellant to the respondent to deposit some amount as donation to Gaushala to which, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent agreed. Now, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has placed on record Donation Receipt for Rs.2,100/ made to Gaushala, Sector 45, Chandigarh. However, this cannot absolve the respondent from its liability. For deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and its staff members, the respondent is liable to compensate the appellant for the suffering, both mental and physical and also on account of deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent.

8]                We are of the concerted view that the Ld. District Commission has totally failed to appreciate the factual position on record and passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without going into the documentary evidence available on record. Thus, the appeal is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.371 of 2019 is allowed with costs. The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.7,500/- to the appellant/ complainant  towards compensation and litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of passing of this order till actual realization.

10]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

26.07.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad