Om Parkash vs NARWANA GAS SERVICE OF NARWANA

THE complainant has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Jind virtually allowing the complaint and substantially granting the relief prayed for.

IN the somewhat cryptic complaint preferred by the appellant, it was alleged that he held Consumer Card No. 2417 for the supply of gas cylinder and had apparently applied for a Double Bottle Connection subsequently. The basic prayer was that there was delay in granting the a fore said D.B.C. and the prayer was that the records of the opposite party be checked and find out the basis on which these were being released and such a connection be issued in his favour on the prescribed rates. On notice being issued, the respondents took up the firm plea that the D.B.C. booked by the complainant on the 18th of July, 1991 had been entered at Sr. No. 519. However, so far release of D.B.C. connections upto Sr. No. 280 had been allowed and had been conveyed to the concerned persons. It was, therefore, pointed out that the turn of the respondent having not arrived, the said connection will be duly issued to him seriatum when his serial number was reached.

During the course of hearing the respondents, produced the records, clearly reflecting that the D.B.C. of the complainant were registered at Sr. No. 519, dated the 18th of July, 1991. For further clarification it was however, ordered by the District Forum to produce the record pertaining to D.B.C. connections released under the order of the officers of the oil company and also on the basis of registered priority from 18th of July, 1991 to 31th of July, 1992. On the final date of hearing the complainant did not choose to come present, whilst on behalf of the respondents their proprietor Shri I.S. Lamba put in appearance and produced registration slip bearing No. 519, dated the 18th of July, 1991 with regard to the booking of the D.B.C. of the complainant. The District Forum on a consideration of the whole matter directed as under:- "in view of the fact that the respondent has issued Registration Slip bearing No. 519 with regard to the booking of D.B.C. by the complainant, this complaint stands dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to issue DBC to the complainant on the prescribed rates as and when his turn comes."

IT would be manifest from the above, as rightly observed by the District Forum, the complaint stood redressed, despite the unexplained absence of the complainant himself before it. Nevertheless the present appeal has been preferred. The appellant who appeared in person, first attempted to make a grievance that he could not attend the proceedings on the crucial date of hearing. For this apparently, he has only himself to blame. It was conceded before us that the appellant because of his pre-occupation elsewhere did not come present on that day nor did he depute any one else either to seek an adjournment or to represent his matter. Nevertheless, the District Forum far from dismissing the complaint in default adverted to the merits of the matter and passed the order which as already noticed is virtually in the appellant''s favour.

THE appellant had then repeated his apprehensions of delayed release and rather curiously submitted that he himself was not aware of his serial number at all, but nevertheless suspected that his priority was higher. THEre appears to be little or no substance in this plea. THE date of booking on the 18th of July, 1991 was not disputed. THE appellant conceded that he had not expressly taken any slip or written acknowledgement of his priority number. On the other band the respondents had produced documentary proof that the appellant''s Sr. No. was 519 in priority, and the same has not as yet reached. THE appellant was frankly unable to conclusively challenge the said number in any way. That being, so the order of the District Forum is impeccable and no challenge worth the name has been raised on behalf of the appellant, despite his considerable vociferousness and the latitude we allowed him in making his submission as a lay consumer. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellant-consumer with any costs and the more so because no appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.