PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL GAS AGENCY-/ vs C. Pandian

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.1997 in O.P. No. 65/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin.

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. The succinct facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

One C. Pandian (complainant) availed of gas service connection to his residential accommodation from the Proprietor, National Gas Agency (opposite party) on 2.1.1995 by depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for supply of gas cylinder to his domestic use. It appears, the complainant had been getting the gas supply till upto October, 1996, from the opposite party and since there was escalation in price of the cost of gas cylinders, the complainant decided to sever his membership from the opposite party Gas Agency and consequently returned the gas cylinder in the month of November, 1996 and requested the opposite party to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- to him. The opposite party was not amenable to such a course. Consequently, he issued a notice through Arumuganeri Consumer Protection Council on 31.12.1996 to the opposite party to refund the deposit amount. The opposite party, on the other hand, issued a reply notice dated 15.1.1997 with untenable contentions. In such a situation, the complainant, knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part. THE complainant did not at all surrender the gas cylinder during the month of November, 1996 and he is always ready and willing to refund a sum of Rs. 1,400/- after deducting the service charges of Rs. 600/- provided the complainant returns the empty cylinder. THE complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the complainant returned the empty cylinder during the month of November, 1996, and therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the opposite party to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant and the opposite party had not having refunded the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/-, it cannot at all be stated that such act of the opposite party can''t be one of an act falling within the definition of "deficiency in service" on his part. With the finding so recorded, the Forum below directed the opposite party to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from November, 1996, till realisation with cost of Rs. 500/- giving time in a month for compliance from the date of the order.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. B. Pugalendhi. On service of process, the respondent/complainant did not enter appearance through a Counsel of his choice and he represented himself. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, neither the Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party nor the respondent/complainant is present in Court to project their respective hues of views. The fact that they are absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits on perusal of the materials placed on record. That is exactly what we have done in this case.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. There is no pale of controversy that the opposite party received the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- for supplying gas cylinder to the complainant for his domestic use. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had been getting the gas cylinder till upto the month of October, 1996.

IT is the case of the complainant that since there was escalation in price of gas cylinder, he wanted to sever his membership with the opposite party Gas Agency and consequently surrendered the empty cylinder during the month of November, 1996 and pressed for the payment of deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite party would however contend that the gas cylinder stated to have been surrendered by the complainant during the month of November, 1996, did not at all happen and he is always ready and willing to return the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- after deducting the service charges of Rs. 600/-, that is to say, he is always ready and willing to refund the sum of Rs. 1,400/- provided the complainant returns the empty cylinder. This aspect of the case, as projected by the parties has been thoroughly sifted and analysed by the Forum below by taking into consideration the various documents filed before it. The Forum below ultimately came to the conclusion that the cylinder had been returned by the complainant to the opposite party during the month of November, 1996. That sort of a finding as recorded by the Forum below for the reasons in its order cannot at all be stated to be suffering from any infirmity calling for interference.

The amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite party is for the supply of gas cylinder to him for domestic use every month. The deposit so made, in such circumstances, can''t be anyone other than for the purpose of the same serving as a security for the cylinder entrusted to the custody of the complainant. The moment the complainant severs his membership with the Gas Agency and surrendered the cylinder, it goes without saying that the opposite party, Gas Agency, is bound to return the deposit amount to a consumer like the complainant and he cannot be expected to make any deduction in such deposit having been made earlier. The non-refund of the deposit amount, in such circumstances, would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and such being the case the finding of the Forum below when it said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot at all be found fault with.

THE Forum below after all directed the opposite party to refund of the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from November, 1996 till realisation with cost of Rs. 500/- which we rather feel on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable not calling for interference. THE appeal, as such, deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We however make it clear that the order passed by the Forum below and confirmed by us shall have to be complied with by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of our order or otherwise the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.