State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswinder Kaur vs Raj Gas Service on 20 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.309 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Jaswinder Kaur, aged about 50 years, wife of Sh. Bakhtawar
Singh, R/o Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District
Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
2) First Appeal No.310 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Krishna Devi, aged 30 years, wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
3) First Appeal No.311 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Harwinder Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o Sh. Malkit Singh, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
First Appeal No.309 of 2017 2
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
4) First Appeal No.312 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Ashok Kumar, aged about 52 years, S/o Sh. Ram Nath, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
5) First Appeal No.313 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Ajmer Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Santokh Singh, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
6) First Appeal No.314 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Baldev Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Inder Singh, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
First Appeal No.309 of 2017 3
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
7) First Appeal No.315 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Tejinder Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, R/o
Village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
8) First Appeal No.316 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.04.2017
Date of decision : 20.07.2017
Mohinder Kaur, aged about 76 years, W/o Sh. Dharam Singh, R/o
Village Muzafat, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Raj Gas Service Bela, Ropar Road, Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,
District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeals against the similar orders
dated 21.03.2017 & 03.04.2017 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Anshul Jain, Advocate for
Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex parte.
First Appeal No.309 of 2017 4
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of the above noted eight First Appeals, as the questions of facts and law are similar in all the appeals and the same have been directed against the similar orders dated 21.03.2017 and 03.04.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, were disposed of, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainants.
2. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.309 of 2017. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that for her domestic use, the complainant obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.284 dated 31.08.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party with a request to disconnect the gas connection provided to her, as she did not want to avail the services of the opposite party any more. She submitted First Appeal No.309 of 2017 5 application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- on 27.03.2014 and also served legal notice dated 18.03.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking directions to the opposite party to return the security amount of ₹3,850/- and to pay ₹20,000/-, for causing unnecessary harassment, including litigation expenses.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, raising certain preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as the opposite party is an authorized dealer of Prachi Gas Botteling Private Limited for the Chamkaur Sahib Block; who was not impleaded in the complaint as a party. The complainant has concealed the material facts. She never moved an application to the opposite party, as alleged, and the receiving thereof is forged. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement/application form, after the expiry of 500 days from the date of connection, 1/4th amount of refundable security i.e. ₹600/- was refundable to the customer and the opposite party was ready and willing to refund the same to her right from the beginning, when she made demand, vide her legal notice. On merits, obtaining of the gas connection, in question, by the complainant was admitted. It was pleaded that a total sum of ₹3,850/- was received by the opposite party from her, First Appeal No.309 of 2017 6 out of which refundable security was ₹2,400/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the application form/agreement. The opposite party is providing proper and satisfactory services to its customers and the rates of the refill of gas cylinders are as per the directions of Prachi Gas Botteling Service Private Limited. Other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
Finding of the District Forum
5. Both the sides 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, disposed of the complaint, vide impugned order dated 21.03.2017. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/complainant has come up in this appeal, with a prayer to allow all the reliefs, as claimed in the complaint.
Contentions of the Parties
6. I have heard learned proxy counsel for the appellant/complainant, as the respondent has not appeared and has been proceeded against ex parte. I have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned proxy counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises, as the District Forum has not granted the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. The District Forum wrongly relied upon the evidence produced by the opposite party. It was further contended that the complainant deposited a total First Appeal No.309 of 2017 7 amount of ₹5,850/- with the opposite party for getting the gas connection, out of which a sum of ₹3,850/- was towards the refundable security. However, the District Forum has not allowed the same. Thus, the impugned order is required to be modified, by way of allowing the appeal; thereby awarding all the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
Consideration of Contentions
8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant.
9. Admittedly, the gas connection, in question, was obtained by the complainant from the opposite party. As per copy of the passbook Ex.C-5, the complainant deposited ₹3,850/- with the opposite party. In the Connection Application Form, Ex.OP-2, which is duly signed by the complainant, the refundable security is mentioned as ₹2,400/- and not ₹3,850/-, as alleged by the complainant. At the end/bottom of the said application form, it is mentioned that "refundable amount shall be half after the expiry of three hundred days and shall be one fourth after the expiry of five hundred days". As per the complainant, she applied for refund of ₹3,850/-, vide letter dated 27.03.2014, Ex.C-2. The receipt of this letter has been denied by the opposite party. Moreover, there is no date of receipt mentioned on this application, nor any postal receipt has been annexed by the complainant to show that the said application was sent to the opposite party through post or First Appeal No.309 of 2017 8 otherwise. Putting initials by some person, without designation and stamp of the Company does not mean that the said application was received by the opposite party. As per Application Form Ex.OP-2, after the expiry of five hundred days, 1/4th of the amount deposited was to be refunded. The connection was obtained by the complainant on 31.08.2012 and the period of five hundred days had already expired and, as such, the entitlement of the complainant is 1/4th of the refundable amount i.e. ₹600/- (2400/4). Perusal of the impugned order itself shows that learned counsel for the opposite party, who was appearing on its behalf before the District Forum, stated at bar that the opposite party was ready to refund the said amount, subject to return of the items by the complainants, against which the security was obtained by the opposite party. No ground/justification is made out to award any other relief in favour of the complainant, as the documents produced by the complainant herself speak contrary to her version, as given in the complaint.
10. Still further, the opposite party took specific objection that it was the authorized dealer of Prachi Gas Botteling Pvt. Ltd., who was not impleaded as party in the complaint. The complainant did not implead the said Company in the complaint, for the reasons best known to her. The complainant also did not implead the Indian Oil Corporation, because the rules and regulations of Indian Oil Corporation would have been further helpful in determining the refundable amount properly. The complainant First Appeal No.309 of 2017 9 should have filed proper complaint against the other authorities as well, but she filed the complaint only against the opposite party. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order and the same need not to be interfered with.
11. In view of my above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
First Appeal No.310 of 2017
12. Similarly, in First Appeal No.310 of 2017 (Krishna Devi v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, she obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.443 dated 12.11.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. She submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- on 06.02.2013 and also served legal notice dated 29.03.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹3,850/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
13. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
14. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 03.04.2017, directing First Appeal No.309 of 2017 10 the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
15. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.310 of 2017 (Krishna Devi v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.311 of 2017
16. Similarly, in First Appeal No.311 of 2017 (Harwinder Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, he obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.57 dated 14.08.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. The opposite party also received ₹3,290/- from him for second cylinder on 27.10.2012. A sum of ₹7,140/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. He submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹7,140/- on 16.09.2013 and also served legal notice dated 16.04.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹7,140/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
17. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017. First Appeal No.309 of 2017 11
18. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 03.04.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
19. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.311 of 2017 (Harwinder Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.312 of 2017
20. Similarly, in First Appeal No.312 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, he obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.497 dated 17.09.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. He submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- on 08.05.2013 and also served legal notice dated 18.03.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹3,850/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.309 of 2017 12
21. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
22. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 21.03.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
23. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.312 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.313 of 2017
24. Similarly, in First Appeal No.313 of 2017 (Ajmer Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, he obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.38 dated 14.08.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. He submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- on 05.12.2013 and also served legal notice dated 16.04.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of First Appeal No.309 of 2017 13 security amount of ₹3,850/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/- , including litigation expenses.
25. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
26. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 03.04.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
27. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.313 of 2017 (Ajmer Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.314 of 2017
28. Similarly, in First Appeal No.314 of 2017 (Baldev Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, he obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.21 dated 13.08.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. He submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- on 17.03.2015 and also served legal notice dated 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.309 of 2017 14 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹3,850/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
29. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
30. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 21.03.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
31. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.314 of 2017 (Baldev Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.315 of 2017
32. Similarly, in First Appeal No.315 of 2017 (Tejinder Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, he obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.27 dated 13.08.2012, by depositing ₹5,850/-. A sum of ₹3,850/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. He submitted application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹3,850/- First Appeal No.309 of 2017 15 on 11.06.2013 and also served legal notice dated 18.03.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹3,850/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
33. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
34. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 21.03.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
35. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.315 of 2017 (Tejinder Singh v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 is upheld.
First Appeal No.316 of 2017
36. Similarly, in First Appeal No.316 of 2017 (Mohinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), as per version of the complainant, she obtained gas connection from the opposite party, bearing No.1156 dated 07.12.2012, by depositing ₹4,400/-. A sum of ₹2,400/- was deposited as security, which was refundable. However, the opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant, as its cylinder refill rate was very high and no subsidy was provided, as per Govt. rules. She submitted First Appeal No.309 of 2017 16 application to the opposite party for the return of security amount of ₹2,400/- on 06.01.2014 and also served legal notice dated 16.04.2016 upon it, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund of security amount of ₹2,400/-, along with compensation of ₹20,000/-, including litigation expenses.
37. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.309 of 2017.
38. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 03.04.2017, directing the opposite party to refund the due security amount on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant.
39. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.309 of 2017 (Jaswinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela), the First Appeal No.316 of 2017 (Mohinder Kaur v. Raj Gas Service Bela) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is upheld.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 20, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)