JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging deficiency in service in not issuing a new Gas connection.  Hence prays for relief to issue a new Gas connection along with Rs.30,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- for the damages caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are as under;

            2.  That, the complainant had filed an application for new Gas connection on 28-07-2011.  The complainant after making several request to the opponent at last on 14-08-2012, they informed that they are coming for house verification.  The complainant further alleged that as per the norms house verification was completed on 16-10-2012 and they certified by putting seal that a new gas connection can be given to the complainant.  The opponent after this did not give gas connection at all to the complainant and instead made them to come/roam to their office most of the time.

            The complainant further alleged that at last when he met DC regarding that OP has not given new Gas connection then he advised to put an application on online.  So on 08-12-2012 the complainant filed an application on online.  After getting the customer ID number along with the copy of the customer ID number and with other documents the complainant went to K.F.C.S. authorities, then the opponent told him he did not get any notification regarding it.  He denied to take the particular documents.  The complainant further alleged that at last on 30-01-2013 the application was accepted and intimated the complainant telling that within 10 – 15 days a message will come to the complainant mobile, then he has to come to them.  

            The complainant further alleged that after few months passed away, he did not get any message, when he went to the opponent and enquired about it.  The opponent told that if message has not come, then the new Gas connection cylinder will not be given, if at all if it is to be given, then we will give call on phone and inform him.  The complainant further alleged that as the months passed on, the opponent did not give a call or gave a new Gas connection.  When the complainant further enquired, then the opponent told it cannot be given instead gave an offer to the complainant to take a new gas connection without subsidy.  Then the complainant rejected the offer and told the opponent to give a new Gas connection claiming with the subsidy, then the opponent told that when subsidy gas connections will be allowed then he will inform him.  Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the opponent did not give a new gas connection.

            The complainant further alleged that the complainant is an ordinary citizen, even after expiry of 4 – 5 years, the OP has not given a new gas connection till today and there by committed the deficiency in service.  Hence has filed this complaint and prays for a new gas cylinder connection along with Rs.30,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.30,000/- for the damage caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- for the litigation and other expenses as prayed above.

            3.  This Forum after admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opponent and the notice was served upon opponent.  In pursuance of issuance of notice to the respondent, the respondent did not appeared before the Forum and he was placed Ex-parte and the case was posted for complainant evidence.  The counsel for the opponent appeared before the Forum and filed vakalatnama along with IA U/O IX Rule 7 of CPC to set-aside the exparte order.  The said IA was allowed and the opponent was allowed to file written version.  The counsel for the opponent filed written version to the main petition.

            4.  The objection of Opponent are as under;

            The respondent/opponent files his written version contending interalia that he has denied few averments with respect to para No. 2 and 3.  The OP further contended that it is true that before the complainant submitting for a new gas connection, earlier to him many consumers have submitted online application.

            The opponent further contended that he has denied all the contents in para No.4 in toto.  It is true that when the complainant asked for a new gas connection with subsidy, the OP told him that when subsidy claim Gas connection is allowed will inform him.  It is false to say that he never told the complainant that he will not given any Gas connection.  The OP further contended that the complainant has not at all gave him an application along with documents nor to his office.  The complainant has filed a false against him.

            The OP further contended that the contents of the para No.5 is false and denied in toto.  He further submitted since 4 – 5 years the complainant has not taken any legal steps for the new connection and for this reason there is no deficiency in service towards him.

            The OP further contended that the contents in para No.6 is false and totally denied in toto.  The complainant did not submit any application to the OP office on 03-06-2015 and the question of allotting a new gas connection does not arise.  Due to shortage of the cylinder stock a new Gas connection is not allotted.  Even now due to shortage of cylinder new gas connection is not allotted and the said fact is known by the complainant.  The OP further contended that the complainant has filed a false case in order to harassh him and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint along with compensatory cost.

            5.  On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points have been framed.

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not allotting a new Gas connection?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

3. What order?

6. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and has got marked documents as per Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 and closed their side evidence.  The respondent examined himself as RW1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and closed their side evidence.

7.  Heard the counsel for the complainant and OP and perused the records.

8.  Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 : In Affirmative

     Point No. 2 :  In Affirmative

     Point No. 3 :  As per final Order for the following

REASONS

9.  POINT No. 1:- On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record.  To prove the case of the complainant, the PW1 has reiterated the complaint averments in his examination in chief and in support of his case, he has produced the documents pertaining to the application for the new Gas connection.  He has further averred that on 28-07-2011 he made an application for the new Gas connection i.e., Ex.A.10.  The Ex.A.10 clearly reveals that an application was given to the Manager of K.F.C.S.C. Bharat Gas Koppal.  To substantiate the same that again on 30-01-2013 an Online application for new Gas connection was registered and to substantiate the same the complainant has produced the copy of the said online application which is marked as Ex.A.1, which has the consumer information sheet and waiting list ID Number along with the necessary documents, i.e., Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5.  After the verification of the above said application and documents and the waiting list ID number, the Bharath Gas has confimed about the clearance and asked them to contact the KFCSC.  To substantiate the same, the complainant has produced Ex.A.7, wherein it clearly shows the check status of the application.  But to disprove the said entries, the respondent has not produced any other cogent and corroborative evidence except putting suggestion that the complainant has not given any documents and has filed a false case and the said suggestions have been categorically denied by the complainant.

10.  Further, RW1 has deposed as per their specific defence set up in their written version that even on 03-06-2015, the complainant has not given an application for the OP.  Therefore, on the perusal of the Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.13 it is crystal clear that the complainant has given a letter to the D.C. and District Manager of KFSCS, Koppal, which have been produced by the complainant.  Therefore, it can be presumed that the complainant has filed an application on 28-07-2011 and since then he is in touch with all the concerned authorities for a new Gas connection.  Inspite of submitting Online application on 08-12-2012 with all necessary documents, the OP has not allotted him a new Gas connection.  This itself clearly goes to show that from 28-07-2011 till today new Gas connection is not allotted to the complainant by the OP even after the investigation officer of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplier Corporation Ltd., Koppal has issued a certificate for allotting him a new Gas connection, i.e., Ex.A.11.  Therefore on perusal of Ex.A.11 it clearly shows that this letter was issued on 16-10-2012 itself but the OP has not issued a new connection to the complainant.  The defence set up by the respondent and believing his version with respect to that due to shortage of the stock of the cylinder the Gas connection is not issued and even now it is not possible to issue a new Gas connection due to the shortage of the stock of the cylinder is not a justifiable one, hence his version is not believable with respect to specific defence set up by the OP.  But to substantiate the same when there is no cogent documents, their version is not believable.  It is unbelievable that since 2011 to 2015 there was continuous shortage of stock of cylinder that a single new Gas connection could not be allotted.  Therefore, the contention which has been taken by the respondent is vague one and therefore the said defence set up by the respondent is not justifiable one.  The documents which have been produced by the respondents, Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.4 is no way helpful to the OP.  On the contrary as per the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence, the complainant have proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not issuing a new Gas connection to him since 2011 and the said fact have been clearly disclosed in Ex.A.1, Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11, which are the applications given to OP, which have been already discussed supra.  Hence, in the light of above observation, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of OP in not allotting new Gas connection.  Hence in the light of above observation, we constrained to hold point No.1 in the affirmative.

11.  POINT No. 2 :- In the light of observations made by us on point No.1, since the complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency in service on part of OP in not issuing a new Gas connection.  In the light of observation made by us while answering the point No.1 in the affirmative,  the present complainant is entitled for a new Gas connection as prayed for.  Accordingly, we constrained to hold point No.2 in the affirmative.

12.  POINT No. 3 :-  Hence, in the result we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

2. The OP is directed to allot the complainant a new Gas connection with subsidy facility along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for physical and mental agony; Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) for litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which 9% p.a. interest will be charged from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 29^th day of March 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.