DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.199/20.12.2007 Decided on : 22.04.2008 Radhe Sham S/o Sh.Ram Lal, Ajit Singh Tailor street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Tongria Gas Service, Sirsa Road, Mansa through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Amandeep Kansal, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.S.M.S.Mahil, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. ORDER: Radhe Sham (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against Tongria Gas Service, Mansa (hereinafter called as the opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to immediately supply him the gas refill and also pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. Admitted facts of this case are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party with regard to the gas connection bearing No.TISM7987. It is alleged that the opposite party is in the habit of harassing its consumers by not supplying gas refills in time and even over charges its consumers in addition to supply of less gas. According to the Contd........2 : 2 : complainant, he had booked his gas refill on 06.11.2007 against Booking No.820, but he was not properly entertained and the behavior of the opposite party towards him was very rude. The supply was given to him quite late regarding which the complainant had lodged written complaints with the District Food Supply Controller, Mansa, as well as Sales Officer, LPG Gas, Bathinda, but of no avail. The complainant had again booked his gas refill on 12.12.2007, but his supply was not given to him, though the neighbour of the complainant holding No.TIS7334 had booked the supply on 13.12.2007 and the refill was given to him on 17.12.2007. The opposite party was stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant by not giving regular and in time supply to the complainant. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the replying opposite party towards the complainant or any of its other consumers. It was contended that on 17.12.2007, Baljit Singh, delivery man of the opposite party had gone to deliver the refill cylinder to the complainant at his house, but no family member of the complainant was present and Baljit Singh again went to the house of the complainant on 18.12.2007. The complainant was alleged to have abused the delivery man and even uttered humiliating words against the caste of the opposite party. He had even threatened to send Baljit Singh to the lock up as the complainant was a police man. On 19.12.2007, Baljit Singh was stated to have again gone to the house of the complainant to deliver the cylinder, but the complainant refused to receive the same on the ground that he will file a case in the court and get the delivery there. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been accordingly made. Contd........3 : 3 : Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record. It is apparent that the grievance of the complainant is about the non-supply of the regular gas refills to him by the opposite party, as well as the other consumers of the opposite party. Since the present complaint is filed by Radhe Sham himself only, the allegations of general nature with regard to any deficiency towards other consumers of the opposite party cannot be given any weightage in this complaint. It is mentioned by the complainant in the complaint that previously the gas refill was booked by him on 06.11.2007and on account of the failure of the opposite party to supply him the gas refill, he had to file complaints to the District Food Supply Controller, Mansa, as well as Sales Officer, LPG Gas, Bathinda. For support, he has placed on record Exhibit C-3, copy of the complaint dated 20.11.2007 addressed to the District Food Supply Controller, Mansa, and Exhibit C-4, copy of the complaint addressed to the Sales Officer, LPG Gas, Bathinda. Exhibit C-5 is the copy of the postal receipt dated 21.11.2007 indicating the posting of some article to Vineet Seth, Model Town, Bathinda. The perusal of Exhibit C-2, copy of the pass book with regard to the supply of distribution issued by the opposite party, also indicates that the gas refill booked against Sr.No.820 dated 06.11.2007 was delivered to the complainant on 20.11.2007. Thus, the grievance of the complainant appears to be genuine which also finds corroboration from the complaints dated 20.11.2007 sent by him to the District Food Supply Controller, Mansa, as well as Sales Contd........4 : 4 : Officer, LPG Gas, Bathinda, Regarding the gas refill booked by him on 12.12.2007, although the opposite party in its written version has taken the plea that on 17.12.2007 when the delivery man went to the house of the complainant no family member of the complainant was present there, while on 18.12.2007 and 19.12.2007, the complainant had refused to take the delivery of the refill, yet, this finds no corroboration. The affidavits of Sh.Teerath Tongria, Manager of the opposite party, as well as Baljit Singh, delivery man can be given no weightage because the alleged misbehaviour of the complainant with Baljit Singh or uttering of humiliating words against opposite party, as indicated in the writing Exhibit OP-3, were never reported to the police or the higher authorities of the complainant, who himself was a police man. Baljit Singh, being an employee of the opposite party, such writing can be easily managed from him. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record Ext.C-6, copy of the delivery record of Birbal Dass, which indicates that the gas refill booked by him on 13.12.2007 was supplied to him on 18.12.2007. It is not denied that Birbal Dass was the neighbourer of the complainant and, if at all no, family member of the complainant was present on 17.12.2007 or had the complainant refused to take the delivery on 18 & 19.12.2007, Baljit Singh could have got this fact attested from Birbal Dass. That not being so, the version of the opposite party appears to be an after-thought. It is worth while to mention here that the gas refill was got delivered to the complainant on 02.01.2008 after the appearance of the opposite party in this complaint which was instituted on 20.12.2007 and the counsel for the complainant had even filed appearance on 24.12.2007. It can be well judged that no individual consumer prefers to take trouble Contd........5 : 5 : for filing complaints or initiating legal action until and unless he is compelled to do so. In the present case also, the complainant appears to have been compelled by the circumstances created by the opposite party to file this complaint. During the course of arguments, presence of the complainant, as well as Sh.Teerath Tongria, Manager of the Opposite Party was procurred and version of both the sides were heard in the presence of each other. Though Mr.Teerath Tongria had tried to express his own limitations in meeting the demands of the consumers, yet it did not meant that the opposite party was not in a position to formulate some transparent procedure in the booking of the refills, as well as its supply so that individual consumers do not feel discriminated. It was pointed out by Mr.Tongria that the gas refills can now be booked on telephone, as well as Online. If that is so, the opposite party shall also keep a proper record about the uniform delivery of gas refills to each consumer and special circumstances regarding non-delivery to any individual consumer shall also be entered in the record. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, deficiency in service by the opposite party towards the complainant stands duly established. Since the gas refill, as prayed by the complainant, has duly been supplied to him as per order of this Forum, the complaint in that regard has been rendered infructuous. The complainant, however, is entitled to compensation, as well as litigation costs regarding mental harassment. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, the complaint is allowed with regard to the compensation/litigation costs which are assessed at Rs.2,000/- payable by the opposite party to the complainant. Contd........6 : 6 : Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 22.04.2008 Sarat Chander, S.M.S.Mahil, Member. President.
