SADHU RAM vs VAKIL CHAND

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''the Act'') has been filed by the opposite party-appellant against the order dated September 23, 1991, passed by the District Forum, Bathinda, in complaint case No. 95 of 17-7-1991. The District Forum by the impugned order has directed the opposite party to release the gas connection to the complainant forthwith and to pay Rs. 200/- by way of compensation for the harassment suffered by him,

IN view of the short point involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to recount the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant-respondent made a complaint before the District Forum alleging therein that he had made an application alongwith the requisite affidavits duly attested by the Oath Commissioner, requesting I he opposite party (gas agency) to release gas connection to him but it paid no heed to his request. It was alleged that the opposite party refused to release the gas connection because the complainant could not satisfy the demand of illegal gratification raised by it. The complainant also prayed for the grant of compensation for the harassment suffered by him. The opposite party resisted the complaint. It controverted the averments made in the complaint. It was submitted that the consumers were not harassed by the opposite party. Alter considering the complaint and the version of the case and other relevant circumstances which were brought to its notice, the District Forum passed the order as aforesaid on 23-9-1991. Hence, this appeal. We have heard Mr. P.C. Singla learned Counsel for the opposite party-appellant and Mr. Vakil Chand complainant and also perused the record with requisite care.

Mr. P.C. Singla, learned Counsel for the opposite party has urged that the gas connection could not be released to the complainant because, firstly, there was an embargo of the Indian Oil Corporation on the release of new gas connections and secondly a gas connection in the name of the father of the complainant was already working in the house of the complainant. We find no substance in this contention. It stands established on the record that on 19-6-1991 alongwith an application for release of new gas connection, the complainant had filed the requisite affidavits on the printed proformas supplied by the opposite party which were duly attested by the Oath Commissioner but the opposite party refused to accept them on the ground that they had received instructions from the Indian Oil Corporation directing them not to release new gas connections with effect from 17-7-1991. The District Forum after hearing the parties Counsel and going through the documents produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the partner of the gas agency could not find any fault with the affidavits produced by the complainant and that the letter issued by the Indian Oil Corporation could not curtail the rights of a genuine applicant since he had approached the gas agency much earlier to 11-7-1991. In the circumstances, the District Forum directed the opposite party to release the gas connection to the complainant forthwith. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that functioning of the gas agencies is far from satisfactory, the services rendered to the consumers are deficient and the manner in which it deals with their complaints leaves much to be desired. The consumer is made to suffer inconvenience, harassment and frustration in pursuing the matter with the gas agencies. Mr. P.C. Singla, Advocate, appearing for the opposite party is unable to satisfy us that the findings of the District Forum suffered from any infirmity or is against facts on the record. In these circumstances, we affirm the findings of the District Forum. The direction issued by the District Forum that the opposite party should pay a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of compensation cannot be said to be vitiated by an illegality.

NO other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. In the light of what has been stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ______________