State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Gas Palace, vs Subhash Chand Sahni on 24 March, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.664 of 2012
Date of institution : 24.05.2012
Date of Decision : 24.03.2014
1. M/s Gas Palace, the Distributors of Bharat LPG Gas Rajpura Town,
District Patiala through Its Partner Sh. Anil Chopra.
2. Anil Chopra, Partner of M/s Gas Palace, the Distributor of Bharat
LPG Gas, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
...Appellants/OPs
Versus
Subhash Chand Sahni (aged about 60 years), Resident of House No.105,
Patel Colony, Rajpura Town, District Patiala.
...Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 04.04.2012 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri H.S.Guram, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
For respondent : Sh. S.S.Chanhar, Advocate
ORDER
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 04.04.2012 in consumer complaint no.383 of 2011 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter First Appeal No.664 of 2012 2 called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was accepted with the direction to the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.7500/- on account of harassment and further directed to ensure that the LPG refill cylinder is made available to the complainant on the day of booking in case it is not possible then within a day or two days.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant-Subhash Chand against the OPs that they are under obligation to supply the LPG as per their requirements, he cannot compel their customers to purchase hot plates etc. at the time of issuance of LPG gas connection. The complainant was also compelled to purchase 2 kg of packed rice worth Rs.200/- at the time of issuance of the gas connection. Further the OPs are legally bound to supply the gas connection as and when the same is required by the consumers but they failed to supply the same every time, when the gas is booked with the OPs, this type of attitude of the OPs is against the standing orders. The OPs are not providing the effective services and harassing the consumers which necessitated the filing of the complaint with a direction to the OPs to supply the gas in time and also to pay for the damages and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not legally maintainable. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs every distributor supply the LPG gas cylinder as per booking under the Rules to the consumers. It was denied that the consumers are compelled to purchase hot plates and other articles at the time of getting connection. The consumers purchase the articles of their own choice. It was denied that the complainant is forced to purchase any items like 2kg Rice pack from the OPs, the complainant has leveled false First Appeal No.664 of 2012 3 allegations against the OPs. The complaint is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations complainant filed his affidavit as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex.C-2 photocopy of the receipt, Ex.C-3 refill receipt, Ex.C-4 is the invoice, Ex.C-5 is the bill. On the other hand, OP filed affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar Chopra, Partner of Gas Place as Ex.R-1.
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents on record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.
7. Aggrieved with the order so passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OPs have filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the counsel for the appellant- Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate and counsel for the respondent- Sh. S.S.Chandan, Advocate and carefully gone through the judgment passed by the learned District Forum, pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and grounds of appeal.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned District Forum is against the law and facts and is liable to be set-aside as the cylinders are supplied as per Rules and availability on the basis of seniority of booking. The learned District Forum has failed to take note of Ex.C-2, which is photocopy of passbook of the consumer bearing Card serial no.8060056, wherein the cylinder have been supplied within 1,4,5,10 and 19 days as per availability of the cylinder, therefore, the order to pay compensation of Rs.7500/- and to make available the gas cylinder on the same day or within 1-2 days from the date of booking is liable to be set- aside. With regard to the purchase of rice or some other articles, the First Appeal No.664 of 2012 4 complaint of the complainant was dismissed being time barred because the same was purchased on 30.03.2009 and complaint was filed on 24.05.2011 being time barred.
10. With regard to supply of gas cylinder on booking to the consumer specially the complainant, the complainant has placed on the record his passbook of LPG gas cylinder wherein date of booking and delivery has been mentioned which shows that on some occasions it was delivered on the same day or it was supplied after one, four, five, nine, ten, eleven and nineteen days. Certainly, it depends upon the availability of the supply from the supplier. The counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments has not been able to refer any Rules of the Ministry of Petroleum vide which the LPG distributor is under legal obligation to supply the refill cylinder on the same day or within 1-2 days. The instructions to that effect are that they are to maintain the seniority list and therein reflect the same in their office upto which seniority number the cylinder refills have been supplied. In the complaint it has not been alleged by the complainant that they are not maintaining the seniority list or that any seniority was not followed. He has not referred the name of any consumer who was given the refill supply out of the turn, therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum to make available the supply to refill cylinder on the same date or within a day or two is not justified, when the OPs are maintaining the seniority and are supplying the cylinder as per the availability, then the complainant/respondent has not been able to prove on the record any deficiency in the services so provided by the OPs then the OPs can be burdened to pay any compensation and litigation expenses. It seems that the learned District Forum was swayed with the contentions raised by the complainant without taking into consideration that the OPs have been supplying the refill as per the availability because they are supplied the refill by the Ministry of Petroleum. In these First Appeal No.664 of 2012 5 circumstances, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
11. In view of the above discussions, we accept the appeal and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, being without merit.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.03.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
14. The appellants/OPs have deposited an amount of Rs.3750/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs.3750/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants/OPs by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (H.S.Guram) Member March 24, 2014 Rs