Bhag Chand vs SIDDARTH GAS COMPANY

AGGRIEVED against the order dated 8.3.91 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 227/90, the complainant has filed this appeal underSec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). By the impugned order the District Forum gave a direction to the opposite party-respondent as to the manner and mode to be adopted by a delivery boy of the gas cylinder in case the house of the consumer is locked. The opposite party-respondent has remained satisfied with the order and has not filed any appeal. However, the complainant- appellant has come up in appeal praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite party to supply gas cylinder according to the rules and also to award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with costs and damages.

FACTS leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant-appellant has averred that on 25.1.90 he booked gas cylinder on phone. He was told that the gas cylinder will be delivered after 8-10 days. On 82.90 the delivery boy came with the gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant. But the complainant was not having any coupon with him. He took away the gas cylinder back and told that he will come after 2-3 days. On 10.2.90 the complainant brought the coupons from the Gas Agency (opposite party). He was told by the opposite party that the gas cylinder will be sent within 1-2 days. But it was not received. He again reminded on 15.2.90 to the opposite party. The complainant was told that his booking has been cancelled. He enquired about the reason, whereupon the employees of the opposite party, Naresh Kumar and Prithvi Singh misbehaved with the complainant and told him that when he books the gas second time, it will be delivered. The complain- ant stated that other Gas Agencies are not acting in this manner and the gas is resent and booking is not can- celled. The complainant again booked the gas on 21.2.90. He was told that gas cylinder will be sent within 6-7 days. When he contacted on phone on 27.2.90 Naresh Kumar, an employee of the opposite party told that the gas cylinder has been sent. But the complainant did not receive the gas cylinder. According to the complainant he received the gas cylinder on 1.3.90 at 10 A.M. The complainant stated that this has affected him problems considerably and he had to face many problems. On account of that he has suffered bodily and mentally. He, therefore, filed the complaint dated 30.7.90. It was stated in the last para of the complaint as under- "MAHODYA PRARTHI KO DINANK 25 JANUARY SE GAS CYLINDER UPLABDH NAHI HONE KE KARAN KAI PARESHANIYON KA SAMNA KARNA PAD RAHA HAI TATHA MANSIK AGHAT BHI PAHUCHA HAI, JISKE KARAN MERI KARYA KUSHALTA PAR PRATIKUL PRABHAV PADA HAI ATEH AAPSE ANURODH HAI KI SABHI KO JO MANSIK VA SHARIRIK YATNAEN PAHUCHI HAI USKE PRATI NYAY KIYA JAYE."

The opposite party filed the version of the case refuting the allegations made in the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant booked the gas on 25.1.90. The gas was sent on 8.2.90 but as he had no coupon, it was returned on 8.2.90. The complainant took the coupon from the gas agency. The gas cylinder was again sent on 12.2.90 and the delivery was to be made on that day but the complainant was not there. The house was locked and he came back. On 15.2.90 the complainant was apprised of the cancellation of the booking. It was denied that there was any misbehaviour of Naresh Kumar. On 21.2.90 the complainant again got the gas booked and it was delivered to him. It was denied that with respect to the cancellation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, has not prescribed any procedure. It was stated that the policy adopted by the Company is justified. Certain other objections were taken under the Head additional pleas. The opposite party submitted a photostat copy of the order dated 27.7.90 by which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default previously. Photostat copy of the affidavit and distribution chart were submitted. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the complaint. The District Forum recorded the following findings in the impugned order : - (1) that the complainant has not mentioned any amount in his affidavit. He has not claimed any amount in his complaint. No evidence was produced by him and so compensation cannot be awarded. (2) that if the delivery boy found that the house was locked it was his duty to obtain signatures on the vouchers of the neighbored so that the consumers may not have any occasion to say that the cylinder was not delivered deliberately. In these circumstances the neighbourer can inform the consumer that gas has come so that the complainant may contact the Gas Agency. The complainant-appellant has filed the appeal as stated above.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant-appellant. Resort was, therefore, made to Rule 8(6) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987. On behalf of the respondent, we heard Mr. B.K. Agarwal, Advocate. We have carefully considered the complaint, the reply thereto, the affidavits and the documents submitted by the parties. The order under appeal has also been carefully scrutinized keeping in view the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is clear from the record that the complainant got the gas booked. The defence taken by the opposite party was that on 12.2.90 the house of the complainant was locked and, therefore, gas could, not be delivered and so the booking was cancelled. The opposite party has not produced any order, regulation, instruction of Bharat Petroleum Corporation showing that if the house is locked, the booking should be cancelled. The opposite party has done this of his own accord. The District Forum has given an innocuous direction in the impugned order which is no way adversely affects the opposite party and as a matter of fact safeguards the interest of the consumer and avoids any manipulation regarding non- delivery of the gas cylinder. There is nothing wrong in directions which were given by the District Forum. We do not find any justification for the complainant, what-so ever, to day that the gas should be supplied regularly. The gas is to be supplied to the consumer according to the turn of booking and when the gas is supplied and the delivery is not taken of by the consumer-complainant on the ground that the house is locked, there is nothing wrong if the delivery boy takes an endorsement of the neighbourer of the house of the complainant slating that the house was locked and, therefore, the supply was not made. This is necessary to protect the opposite party from ma king any false allegation and also for the reason that the complainant has been informed that the gas has been received and the house was locked so that he may contact the opposite party in regard to the supply of gas cylinder.

THE other grievance made by the complainant-appellant in the memo of appeal is that the District Forum had not awarded any compensation to him and a sum of Rs.5000/- may be allowed to him together with costs and damages. We have considered the reasons given by the District Forum in the impugned order and no valid exception can be taken. In the complaint, the complainant has not said a word that compensation may be awarded for the reasons on which it is claimed. A bald statement has been made in the last para of the complaint which has been reproduced hereinabove stating that for bodily pain and mental agony justice may be done to him. THE complaint is conspicuously silent with regard to the averment relating to the compensation and on the grounds on which it is claimed what to speak of the quantity. THE matter does not rest at that. THE complain- ant has filed his affidavit in support of the complaint. In that affidavit also nothing has been stated with respect to the award of compensation. What he has stated in para 4 of the affidavit is that he had to face domestic inconvenience and difficulties when the gas cylinder was not supplied. It is well settled that the compensation can only be awarded on the basis of certain well-recognized principles and the complainant has to produce evidence for the award of compensation. What to speak of substantiation or its quantification, no evidence has been brought on record. Facts and circumstances could be stated about harassment. THE District Forum was, therefore, right in not awarding compensation to the complainant-appellant. Having bestowed our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of opinion that no valid exception can be taken to the order appealed against. The appeal has no force. It is, therefore, dismissed. As the opposite party has put in appearance through a counsel we order that the appellant shall pay Rs. 200/- as costs to the respondent within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. Appeal dismissed with costs.