BALDEV SINGH vs PATHAK L.P.GAS SERVICE (HANDIGAS)

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the impugned order dated 1.6.2000. Though the complaint was allowed in the favour of the complainant, he remained dis-satisfied and filed the appeal with a prayer that the order be passed enhancing the compensation within the competence of this Commission by way of accepting this appeal with costs.

THE case of the complainant is that on 8.2.1994, L.P.G. connection was released on the name of Shri Baldev Singh s/o Shri Gurdit Singh against total payment of Rs. 3,500/-, out of which Rs. 2,952/- for the gas connection and remaining amount of approximately Rs. 547/- for hot plate/gas stove. THE complainant/appellant was made to purchase gas-stove bearing trade name Navin L.P.G.''s Gas Stove from the opposite party - Pathak L.P. Gas Service. THE Consumer No. 006346 was allotted to complainant on 8.2.1994. THE services of the L.P.G. supply by opposite party had remained paralysed and adversely affected during the last four to five years. Moreover, the rates of L.P.G. Cylinder (Handigas) was enhanced from Rs. 147/- to Rs. 340/- at their own wishes. THE opposite party did not make entry of re-filled cylinder after 24.6.1995 in the Consumer Card but kept on charging Rs. 340/- for re-filling per cylinder without issuing any cash memo. It has been stated that by committing above mentioned irregularities, the opposite party was deficient in rendering service and guilty of unfair trade practice. THE complainant and his wife repeatedly asked him verbally for termination of his gas connection and further requested to make refund of full amount as per Clause No. 10 of terms and conditions of L.P.G. connection service, but the opposite party never bothered to listen to the verbal requests and believed in giving evasive replies. A legal notice dated 16.1.2000 for termination of L.P.G. connection was sent through registered post to the respondent. THE opposite party using his influence and in connivance with postal authority, got the said notice returned with remarks. "Eh Firm Chaar Saal to Bandh hai", whereas the firm is still existing in the Main Bazar of Nurpur Bedi. THE complainant had prayed for the refund of Rs. 2,772/- with interest. On notice being served, the opposite party - Shri Nand Lal Pathak, appeared and filed reply in form of affidavit stating therein that he was neither authorised dealer nor Manager of the Pathak L.P.G. Service (Handigas) Nurpur Bedi, at the same time denying the correctness of factual position pleaded in the complaint. In re-joinder filed by the complainant, he asserted if Nandlal Pathak had not been connected with the ''Pathak Gas Company'', he would not have accepted the notice sent by the District Forum.

The District Forum afforded the opportunity to both the parties of being heard and after perusal of the record before it, District Forum passed the aforementioned order.

THE appellant - Baldev Singh was represented by Shri Brij Mohan in this appeal whereas Mr. Bachan Singh, Advocate appeared for the respondent. After hearing learned Counsel for the respondents and the representative of Baldev Singh, we have become more enlightened about the working of the L.P.G. connection dealers in the remote areas. The present is a case, where the subscriber of the gas connection wants to get the L.P.G. connection terminated as per the terms and conditions supplied to him along with voucher issued by the dealer. He had to undergo severe mental and physical harassment due to the adamant and arrogant attitude of the dealer. The matter does not end here. As per the District Forum record, the opposite party did everything adverse possible to evade the legal notice sent by the consumer. We can well imagine the fate of those who must be applying for fresh gas connection with such dealers. There are instances where such dealers are fleecing the innocent public thereby indulging in unfair trade practice.

THE appeal in hand has been filed for the enhancement of the compensation. THE grouse of the appellant is that he requested number of times verbally to the respondent for termination of L.P.G. connection but the respondent never bothered to listen. In next trial, the complainant approached the opposite party with a legal notice for termination of L.P.G. connection but that notice was not received by the opposite party (Ex. A-7). Keeping aside all the terms and conditions of the contract, such dealers no doubt arbitrarily use their rights of dealership. Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. In a recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, cited as 2000 (2) CLT page 489, Hon''ble Chief Justice A.S. Anand has remarked, "It is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments etc. suffered by the appellant which is the issue, it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to be founded in a case of proven negligence". Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and taking into account all relevant factors, it would be reasonable, fair and proper to enhance compensation.

WE, therefore, partly accept this appeal and allow enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant/appellant.

WE do not want to interfere with the other reliefs granted by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum stands modified only to the extent aforesaid. Compliance of the order be done within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Appeal partly allowed.