SHEHZADA GAS SERVICE vs SAT PAL MAHAJAN

BY this order, two Appeals No. 864 of 1996 and 833 of 1996 are being disposed of. Appeal No. 833 of 1996 has been filed by Sat Pal Mahajan, complainant and Appeal No. 864 of 1996 has been filed by the opposite party No. 1. The main judgment is prepared in Appeal No. 864 of 1996 filed by opposite party Shehzada Gas Service, Distributor of LPG at Gurdaspur, challenging the order of District Forum, Gurdaspur dated October 9,1996 granting compensation of Rs. 1,500/-to the complainant Sat Pal Mahajan, a retired Superintendent in the office of D.C., Gurdaspur, alongwith Rs. 500/-as costs of litigation.

COUNSEL for the appellant has not put in appearance but respondent is present in person and has been heard. The facts are not in dispute rather the findings recorded with respect to deficiency of service are not as such challenged in the grounds of appeal filed by the distributor of LPG. The only point raised in the grounds of appeal is about the right of Distributor to claim price for gas refill on the date of delivery of the refill and not on the date of booking or on the date when receipt was prepared for delivery of the refill. Thus deficiency in the matter of rendering service on the part of the appellant for delay in sending refill of gas is writ large.

The complainant Sat Pal Mahajan on 28.6.96 booked refill of gas at Sr. No. 8590. In fact the representative of the Distributor brought the refill on 8.7.96 with cash memo No. 953 which was for a sum of Rs. 104.27 ps. Since representative demanded Rs. 27/-more as price of the cylinder being increased to Rs. 131/-, the complainant went to Distributor''s shop where he was made to pay more price and the cash memo was corrected. In the present complaint, grouse of the complainant was firstly that there was no doubt delay in supplying the re-fill more so when sufficient quantity of re-fills were available with the Distributor and he was supposed to deliver the re-fill within 24 days of the booking, a term printed on the receipt. The second grouse of the complainant was regarding over charging of price of the re-fill as prevalent, stated above.

THE complaint was contested on behalf of the Distributor by filing a reply asserting his right to claim the price prevalent on the day of delivery of the re-fill. Both the parties produced evidence and documents. THE complainant had produced evidence of three witnesses and documents. THE District Forum on the evidence produced Held that there was delay in supplying the re-fill, more so when on the date of booking number of gas filled cylinders (about 844) were available. THE delivery register was with Held by the Distributor from which it could be indicated the manner of distribution of gas cylinders from 28.6.96 to 28.7.96. From the complainant''s evidence, it also transpires that other gas agencies continued supplying cylinders at the old rate of Rs. 104.27 ps. even after the assumed date of increase of price. Since findings on these points are not being challenged, they are accepted as such. When sufficient number of re-fills were available with the Distributor as on 28.6.96 it was expected of the Distributor to promptly distribute the same against the booking already done. There was no reason for the Distributor to delay delivery of the re-fills particularly in the case of the complainant. The reason is apparent that it was on 3.7.96 that the rates of refill were stated to have been revised. It may be sensing rise in the price of the refills that the opposite party, the Distributor Held the entire stocks as then available and stopped the distribution thereof even to the consumers who had booked their re-fills prior thereto. Thereafter on the old receipt vouchers prepared of entire stocks which was available at that time, the same were sought to be sold to the consumers charging extra money as referred to above. This was nothing but Unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant in the matter of distribution of re-fills of LPG. No doubt the Distributor was to charge price of the re-fill at the time of delivery of cylinder, he was expected to do so within 24 hours of the booking more so when empties were available. Obviously, within 24 hours if supply had been made, the Distributor would not have been in a position to charge the excess price.

WITH respect to the stocks already available though supplied after the increase of the price, the Distributor was not entitled to claim the increase in the price unless there were specific instructions from the Company in this respect. Old stocks were to be sold at the old price. The other Distributors of Gurdaspur of different other companies continued charging the old price for the existing stocks as per evidence produced in this case. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in appeal which is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent states that the amount awarded as compensation and costs by the District Forum has already been paid. Let the amount of costs of this appeal be paid to the complainant within 1 month of receipt of copy of this order. With respect to the appeal filed by the complainant, it may be observed that from the records, we find that the complainant was having two empty gas cylinders as double connection was allotted to the complainant. No doubt, the complainant was harassed in this case, for which he was to be suitably compensated. The District Forum allowed Rs. 1,500/-as compensation which is considered just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case and does not call for interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed with costs.