State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vikram Kumar vs G.N.D.T.P. on 2 February, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.553 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013
Date of Decision : 02.02.2016
Vikram Kumar S/o Gopi Nath, R/o H/Q.no.443, Thermal Colony,
Bathinda.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
G.N.D.T.P. Primary Co-operative Consumer Store Limited Thermal
Colony, Bathinda, through its Manager.
.....Respondent/opposite party
First Appeal against order dated
21.03.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate ............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.568 of 2013 Date of Institution: 16.05.2013 Date of Decision : 02.02.2016 G.N.D.T.P. Primary Co-operative Consumer Store Limited Thermal Colony, Bathinda, through its Manager.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Vikram Kumar S/o Gopi Nath, R/o H/Q.no.443, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.First Appeal No.553 of 2013 2
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate ................................................. J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two first appeals, as they have arisen out of the same order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short 'the District Forum') dated 21.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in first appeal no.553 of 2013 titled as "Vikram Kumar Vs. G.N.D.T.P".
2. The appellant of first appeal no.553 of 2013 (the complainant in the complaint) has filed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), for enhancement of compensation and litigation cost.
3. First appeal no.568 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), assailing order dated 21.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was accepted against OP by directing it to pay the cost and compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.
4. Complainant Vikram Kumar has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") First Appeal No.553 of 2013 3 against the OP on the averments that he has been using the LPG Gas Connection, bearing no.G-1318 with OP since 1991 at his residence i.e. Q.No.443, Thermal Colony, Bathinda, as per his requirement for household purposes. The complainant made the booking with OP on 26.02.2011, but OP had not supplied any refill of gas cylinder to complainant despite repeated requests. The OP ultimately supplied refill of LPG to complainant on 11.04.2011. The complainant sought information under RTI from Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Bathinda on 04.05.2011 regarding LPG connection no.G-1318. The OP supplied the information to complainant on 03.06.2011 and complainant was surprised to note that there were nine entries of booking and supply of refill of LPG to the complainant w.e.f. 06.07.2010 to 14.06.2011 and none of the entries tallied with the entries in the blue card of the complainant issued by the OP. The OP has been selling the refill of LPG cylinder in black marketing at higher rates unauthorizedly. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OP be directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
5. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. Any deficiency in service was denied by the OP. No cause of action arose in favour of First Appeal No.553 of 2013 4 complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Intricate question of facts and law are involved in the complaint, which cannot be adjudicated in summary manner by the Consumer Forum. It was further averred that complainant also earlier filed the complaint against OP, but withdrew the same, hence principle of res judicata is applicable. Complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was admitted that complainant booked the refill of LPG with OP on 26.02.2011. The OP denied the other averments of the complainant. It was averred that complainant did not come to take the cylinder intentionally, when he booked it. It was further averred that as and when the complainant came to the agency of the OPs, he was given refill of LPG cylinder, as per rules. It was further averred that OP is a Co-operative Society and booked the gas cylinder for delivery and the same is always delivered by means of entry in blue card on the request of the consumer. The OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OP tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Bathinda dated 21.03.2013, the above referred two separate appeals have been preferred against the same. First appeal no.553 of 2013 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of First Appeal No.553 of 2013 5 compensation, whereas first appeal no.568 of 2013 has been filed by OP challenging the order of District Forum Bathinda under challenge in this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Evidence is required to be examined by us on the record to adjudge the controversy in this case. The grievance of the complainant as raised in the complaint is that he booked the refill of LPG cylinder with OP on 26.02.2011, but OP had not supplied any refill LPG cylinder to complainant, despite repeated requests and visits thereat. Eventually, the OP supplied refill of LPG to complainant on 11.04.2011. The complainant got information under RTI with regard to his LPG connection for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2010 regarding supply of gas cylinder and regarding booking and delivery of LPG cylinder to complainant. As per information, the complainant found that wrong entries of supply of 9 LPG cylinders were made in the blue card of the complainant for the period from 06.07.2010 to 14.06.2011. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP in this case. The OP admitted the complainant to be the holder of above said gas connection in question. Ex.C-1 is the copy of blue card recording the refill receipt. Ex.C-2 is the copy of Form 'A' dated 04.05.2011. Ex.C-3 is the copy of letter dated 27.05.2011. Ex.C-4 is copy of letter dated 03.06.2011 from OP to complainant. Ex.C-5 is the copy of intimation and delivery of LPG cylinder. Affidavits of complainant are Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 on the record. Affidavit of First Appeal No.553 of 2013 6 Dashrath Singh is Ex.C-8 and affidavit of Jasvir Singh is Ex.C-9 on the record. Ex.C-10 is copy of rules. The OP relied upon affidavit of Vijay Kumar, Manager of the OP Ex.R-1 and affidavit of Ram Khilawan Ex.R-2 to refute the case of the complainant.
8. From appraisal of above referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that complainant booked the refill of LPG with OP on 26.02.2011 and received the same on 11.04.2011. The complainant again booked the cylinder on 15.04.2011 and received the delivery on 14.05.2011 (well within time). The complainant again booked refill on 16.05.2011 and got the delivery on 28.07.2011. We find that on 26.02.2011 and 16.05.2011, the refill cylinders have been supplied to complainant belatedly. The defence of OP is that complainant had not turned up to take the delivery of the cylinder after 26.02.2011. It was argued that on 26.02.2011 and 16.05.2011, the delivery was to be taken personally by the complainant from the agency of the OP.
9. We are of this view that except two occasions, the OP delivered the cylinders to complainant in time. The counsel for the complainant relied upon Rule Ex.C-10 on the record to the effect that clause 4 (f) lays down that all LPG cylinders should be home- delivered to consumers in their kitchens. Only under special situations or exigencies like riots, curfews, strikes, etc., distributors may, resort to cash & carry system on optional basis till normalcy is restored. We find that as per above clause 4(f) all LPG cylinders should be home-delivered to consumers in their kitchens except in First Appeal No.553 of 2013 7 case of roits, curfews, strikes. Herein, the OP could not make out that it was a case of curfew, roits or strike, so as to necessitate the delivery of cylinder at the agency. The rule makes it incumbent upon the OP to deliver the LPG cylinder at the home kitchen of the consumer. We find it to be a case of violation of rule, vide Ex.C-10 on the record. The District Forum awarded the composite compensation of Rs.2000/- to complainant, which is now enhanced to Rs.10,000/- in this appeal.
10. In view of our above discussions, we accept first appeal no.553 of 2013 filed by Vikram Kumar and enhance the amount of compensation and costs from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- by modifying the order of District Forum to this extent. This amount shall be payable by the OP now respondent of this appeal to appellant/complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. We find no merit in first appeal no.568 of 2013 filed by the OP and the same is hereby dismissed.
11. The appellant of first appeal no.568 of 2013 had deposited the amount of Rs.1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to respondent of this appeal being complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.553 of 2013 8
12. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 01.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 02, 2016 (MM)