State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, Haridwar Gas Agency vs Om Prakash on 28 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 / 2011
Manager, Haridwar Gas Agency
Singhdwar, Kankhal
Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Thakur Prasad
R/o Near Railway Power House
Main Bazar, Laksar
Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 28/04/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 133 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party to immediately restore the gas supply of the respondent - complainant and the appellant - opposite party was also directed to pay compensation / damages of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent - complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken a gas connection from the opposite party - Haridwar Gas Agency. The gas 2 was regularly supplied to the complainant till February, 2010, but the gas was not supplied to the complainant after February, 2010. The opposite party asked the complainant to complete certain formalities, which the complainant complied with, but inspite of that, the gas was not supplied to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the gas connection of the complainant has been disconnected / stopped vide letter dated 17.12.2009 under multiple system scheme; that the complainant was asked to submit certain documents, but the complainant did not visit the opposite party and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant is having a gas connection with the appellant. The appellant has taken the stand that the gas connection of the complainant was disconnected / stopped under the multiple system scheme for want of verification of documents. The papers on record show that the complainant has submitted the required documents. It is also evident from the record that the gas supply of the complainant was unnecessarily interrupted / disconnected by the appellant without any cogent or sufficient reason 3 and cause. Without any sufficient reason and cause, the gas supply of the complainant should not have been stopped by the appellant.
7. The appellant in para 4 of the written statement has stated that the inquiry in respect of gas connection of the complainant has been completed and the complainant should approach the agency for getting the regular gas supply. This shows that no irregularity was found in the gas connection of the complainant and this also proves the fact that there was clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in interrupting / disconnecting the gas supply of the complainant.
8. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly directed the appellant to restore the gas supply of the complainant. The compensation / damages of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum can not be said to be on the higher side. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of above, appeal is dismissed. However, the respondent - complainant is directed to complete the formalities, if any, for getting the regular gas supply from the appellant. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K