This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1 against the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses to him.
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant applied for a new Gas connection for Kitchen work to opposite party no.1, who is the distributor of Indane Gas Company. Opposite party no.1 issued letter dated 20.12.2011 to him against waiting list no.111104250002621. He reached the office of opposite party no.1 and completed all the formalities and supplied affidavit/photo copy of Ration Card, Voter Card etc., as demanded by the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 wanted to forcibly sell him the gas stove as well. He told the concerned employee of opposite party no.1 that he had already purchased the Gas stove of ISI Mark, vide receipt no.123 dated 5.1.2012 from the Gurpreet Gas Chullah/stoves, Jaitu. After few days, he again requested opposite party no.1 for issuance of the said connection to him without gas stove but opposite party no.1 did not do so, due to which, he suffered a huge loss for his daily kitchen work . He also approached opposite party no 3, the sales officer of Indian Oil Corporation/Indane Gas, Bathinda, but no action was taken by him against opposite party no 1. A representation, was also given to SDM, Jaitu, who, referred the same to AFSO (opposite party no. 4) but no hearing was effected. He approached opposite parties No.1 and 3 several times but all his attempts went in vain.The act of the opposite parties in not releasing the gas connection to him amounts to deficiency in service. Ultimately, he filed the complaint before District Forum seeking following directions to the opposite parties :-
(i) to issue a new Gas connection without gas stove/chullah;
(ii) to pay Rs.20,000/-, as loss of kitchen work and compensation for mental tension and harassment ; and
(iii) to pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses;
3. Upon notice, written reply was filed by opposite party no.1 taking the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant had not fulfilled the requirements of the company. The complaint was bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, as complainant has mala fidely impleaded other opposite parties to embarrass it. It was pleaded that complainant was never forced to purchase a gas stove from it. He was only told that the gas stoves of standard companies were available with it and if he wanted to purchase the same from the market, he was at liberty to do so. It was further pleaded that in an earlier case titled as “Bhola Singh vs. Jaitu Gas Service”, it obtained information under the RTI Act, in which, the report of Sales Tax Department was supplied conveying that there was no firm in existence with the name of “Gurpreet Gas Chulla/ Stove, Jaitu”. It was also pleaded that its employees visited the house of the complainant and found that one gas connection was already running in the name of his father in the house, where new connection was applied by the complainant. The inspection report was prepared and same was duly signed by the complainant and his brother. As per the notifications and guidelines issued by the gas company, second gas connection in same house is legally not permissible. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. Opposite parties no.2&3 filed their joint reply before District Forum and took preliminary objections that the complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hand and had suppressed the material facts. As such, complaint was not maintainable. There was no privity of contract between them and opposite party no.1. So, they cannot be made liable for any negligent act of opposite party no.1. As per the record of opposite party no.1, an intimation letter dated 20.12.2011 regarding new Indane Gas connection was sent to the complainant. Before releasing the connection, physical verification of his residence was carried out on 25.12.2011 and it was found that the hot plates, in use, were not of ISI mark and that there was only one kitchen in the premises. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Opposite party no.4 filed separate written reply before the District Forum in which he took the preliminary objections that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and the complainant has mala fidely impleaded him as opposite party no.4. He visited the premises of complainant and it was found that a Gas connection was already running in the name of his father in the same kitchen, where the complainant and his father were residing jointly, and as per the rules of the company, no additional Gas Connection can be issued in the premises, where one connection is already running. The spot inspection report was duly witnessed by Sukhwinder Kumar. Denying any deficiency in service on his part, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/ Opposite party no.1 and the learned counsel for reponds/opposite parties no.2 and 3, as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant and respondent/opposite party no.4 was proceeded against ex parte. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not entitled to any gas connection as at the time of inspection of his premises, it was found that he was not having separate kitchen with proper ventilation and as per the instructions issued by the company second connection, could not have been issued in the same premises. Learned District Forum has not appreciated this fact. He made a request for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by District Forum
9. The admitted facts of this case are that the complainant applied for a new gas connection with opposite party no 1. Intimation letter dated 20.12.2011(Ex-C5) was issued by the opposite party no 1 demanding certain documents from the complainant i.e. booking slip (in original), proof of residence(i.e. ration card) , photo ID proof and intimation letter. The grievance of the complainant is that, in spite of completing all the formalities the gas connection was not released to him by the OP No. 1. It wanted to forcibly sell a Gas Stove to him whereas he has already purchased a Gas Stove of ISI Mark, vide receipt No. 123 dated 05.01.2012 from Gurpreet Gas Chullah. The stand of the opposite party no. 1 is that one Gas connection was already existing in the house where the complainant was seeking second Gas connection. It proved on record the verification report (Ex-R7), which was prepared by its mechanic in the presence of complainant, who signed the same. The report was also witnessed by one Harbans Lal. In the verification report, complainant admitted that a Gas connection having No. 6045 was already released in his house and that no ISI mark hot plate was existing. This fact was also corroborated from the report of AFSO (Ex-R13), which clearly shows that one Gas connection was already running in the name of the complainant's father and that all the family members were staying in the same house and there was no additional kitchen in it. Opposite party No.1 also proved on record the instructions issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (Ex-R3). Its relevant part is reproduced as under:-
4. New connections are strictly to be issued after proper verification of the customers having a valid kitchen with ventilation. If the customer is not having the valid kitchen or having some other connections in the kitchen, no connection is to be issued to that customer giving their remarks on the inspection report from since one household having single kitchen should have not possess more than one connection as per the policy guidelines.
10. From the report of representative of opposite party no. 1 as well as, from the report of AFSO, it is clear that by virtue of the said instructions the complainant was not entitled to second Gas connection in the same kitchen. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
11. During the pendency of the complaint, District Forum, vide its interim order dated 26.02.2013, directed the complainant to purchase ISI mark Chullah within a period of 10 days and to submit receipt thereof to opposite party no.1 and directed opposite party no. 1 to release the gas connection to the complainant after following the due process within 15 days thereafter. Opposite Party No.1 complied with the order of the District Forum and Gas connection was released to the complainant. Thus, the stand of the complainant, that that he purchased ISI mark Stove on 05.01.11, is falsified.
12. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum wrongly held that as per rules two Gas connections can be released in the same premises with different names on the basis of different Ration Card. Neither any such rule was placed on record nor the complainant proved that he had a separate ration card in his name. Ex-C4 has been wrongly referred to as ration card by the counsel of the complainant, whereas, the same is in fact a copy of complaint made by the complainant to S.D.M., Jaitu against opposite party No.1 regarding non-releasing the new Gas connection to him.
13. In view of the above said discussion and findings the appeal of the opposite party is allowed and impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. The interim order of the District Forum dated 26.02.2013, directing OP no.1 to release the Gas connection to the complainant, is also set aside. Accordingly, OP No.1 is directed to disconnect the Gas connection released to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- The appellant/opposite party No. 1 deposited Rs. 75,00/-, with this Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount of Rs. 75,00/-, along with interest accurred thereon, if any be remitted by the Registry to opposite party No.1 by way of cross cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of sending of the certified copy of the order to the parties.
- The arguments in this case were heard on 04.11.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
