ARJAN SINGH vs THANESAR GAS AGENCY

THIS revision petition arises out of an order passed by the State Commission allowing in part the appeal filed by the respondents before us.

BRIEF facts of the case necessary to understand the case are that the petitioner who was a resident of Dera Rampur (Umri) within the Municipal limit of Thanesar, was denied registration for gas connection, initially, by the 1st respondent on the ground that Dera Rampur (Umri) lies outside the Municipal limits hence outside his service area and, subsequently, by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the same ground. The latter arrived at the same conclusion based on the inquiries made from the 1st respondent. The grouse is two fold, that gas connection was denied on wrong premise which is a deficiency in service because, in fact, Dera Rampur (Umri) was within the Municipal limit of Thanesar and secondly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instead of enquiring from the complainant/petitioner decided to enquire only from the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner they connived to deprive him the facility of gas connection. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner moved the District Forum for seeking relief in the form of damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-, direction to the 1st respondent for giving gas connection and cost of Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum after hearing both the parties directed that the gas connection be given within one month and further directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages and costs, jointly and severally. On an appeal filed by the respondents, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the extent of deleting the Rs. 10,000/- awarded as damages and costs. It is against this order that the petitioner/complainant filed the revision petition. It was argued by the petitioner, the District Forum after detailed examination had found respondent deficient in service and had awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and costs. The State Commission in its order, without ascribing any reason, directed deletion of this award in appeal stage. This cannot be sustained in law. Respondent remained absent despite notice, hence moved ex parte. We have seen the material on record, heard the arguments and find that deficiency on the part of respondents is writ large and harassment caused to the poor petitioner cannot be denied. State Commission has given no reason to disagree with or to modify the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has been compelled to knock at the doors of Consumer Forums to get justice and in that process, incur expenditure to attend the Forums, engage a lawyer, etc. There does not appear to be sufficient grounds given out by the State Commission to waive off Rs. 10,000/- given as damages and costs. In view of the position stated above, the petitioner is certainly entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 5,000/- to be payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.