B P SHARMA vs Raja Gas Agency

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5.12.2001 in Complaint No. 34/2000, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) dismissing the appellants complaint.

THE complainant alleged that he had obtained a cooking gas connection produced and supplied by respondent No. 2 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, of which respondent No. 1 Raja Gas Agency is a dealer at Sarguja, Ambikapur. It was averred that the complainant was required to pay Rs. 1,300/ - for issuance of the said connection. However, receipt for only Rs. 450/ - was issued. It was further averred that though the price of the gas cylinder included the home delivery charges also, yet complainant/appellant was required to pay Rs. 10/ - for delivery for each cylinder, at his home. It was averred by the complainant that the respondent thus indulged in unfair trade practice and he accordingly claimed that compensation be awarded to him. The respondent No. 1, dealer, resisted the complaint. According to the averments of the respondent No. 1, receipt of Rs. 450/ - for issuance of gas connection, was issued by Shiva Gas Agency. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 never charged Rs. 1,300/ - for issuance of the gas connection to the complainant. It was also denied that the complainant was made to pay Rs. 10/ - extra for home delivery of gas cylinder.

THE respondent No. 2 did not appear before the District Forum and did not partake in the proceedings of the complaint. Therefore, District Forum appears to have proceeded against respondent No. 2 ex parte.

THE District Forum held that the complainant has failed to establish and substantiate the allegations of payment of extra charges either at the time of issuance of gas or at the time of delivery of gas cylinder to the complainant. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counsel for the appellants were heard. At the time of hearing of this appeal also none appeared for the respondents. Record perused.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that the gas connection was issued after realising Rs. 1,300/ - from the complainant, but receipt for Rs. 450/ - only was given to him. It was further contended that the respondent No. 1 demanded and charged Rs. 10/ - extra for home delivery of gas cylinders.

SO far as first contention regarding realization of Rs. 1,300/ - for issuance of gas connection and giving receipt of Rs. 450/ - only, is concerned; it may be noticed that the said receipt is issued by Shiva Gas Agency, Ambikapur, and not by the respondent No. 1, Raja Gas Service. It appears from the copy of the said receipt that Rs. 450/ - for cylinder and Rs. 50/ - for regulator were realised and the said receipt was issued in favour of the complainant B.P. Sharma by Shiva Gas Agency. Thus, it does not appear that the said receipt was issued by respondent No. 1 Raja Gas Service. It is also noticed in the above context, that the complainant had filed a complaint No. 46/1993 earlier against Shiva Gas Agency. He filed an application of compromise dated 19.2.1999 in the said complaint; stating that as he had been issued a gas cylinder and regulator for Rs. 1,300/ - no dispute between the said parties subsists. The said complaint was accordingly dismissed by the District Forum, in view of its amicable settlement as above, between the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from the above documents on record that the complainant himself in pursuance of compromise between him and Shiva Gas Agency obtained a cylinder and regulator for Rs. 1,300/ -. That being so, the said grievance can now not be raised by the complainant against respondent No. 1, Raja Gas Agency.

HENCE , the contention in the above regard of the learned Counsel of the complainant/appellant that respondent No. 1 unfairly charged Rs. 1,300/ - from him for issuance of gas connection while receipt for Rs. 450/ - only was issued; cannot be accepted.

THE next contention of the learned Counsel for complainant/appellant was that the respondents charged him extra amount of Rs. 10/ - for delivery of gas cylinder at his residence. It was stated that the official price included home delivery charges and the realization of Rs. 10/ - extra was impermissible and illegal. The complainant has sworn his own affidavit in support of the above contention. Affidavits of several other customers of respondents have also been filed in support of the contentions as above, of the complainant. The respondent No. 1 has not called for cross -examination of the complainant or any other person who supported his version by affidavit. The said affidavits have, therefore, remained unchallenged. Moreover, there appears to be no reason as to why so many customers of the respondent No. 1 would make a statement on oath regarding extra charge of Rs. 10/ - being realised from them, for delivery to refill gas cylinder. It, therefore, appears that the respondent No. 1 has been charging Rs. 10/ - extra for delivery of gas cylinder at the residence of complainant, and also other customers; while in fact, the price of the gas cylinder was inclusive of the home delivery charges also. Thus no extra amount should have been levied and realized for home delivery of the cylinders. The respondent, therefore, have adopted unfair trade practice. Therefore, complainant is entitled to compensation as has been claimed by him.

IN view of the circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to award Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation to the complainant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondent No. 1 shall pay to the complainant/appellant compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand) as well as cost of this litigation which will include that of the complaint and this appeal, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/ - (Rupees two thousand). The amount as above, shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the appellant within 2 months from the date of this order failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default. Appeal allowed.