SHIVA GAS SERVICES vs Sohan Lal

SHIVA Gas Service, through Shama Anand has come up in appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 17.3.1999 of the District Forum, Gurdaspur passed in Complaint No. 31 of 1999 wherein the appellant/opposite party No. 1 has been directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation and further to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

THE complainant Shri Sohan Lai booked a gas connection in 1995 with Shiva Gas Service. He received a letter from the said gas agency on 28.12.1998 for gas connection. He went to the gas agency office on the next day i.e. 29.12.1998 to get the gas connection released on his name. He was asked to come on 4.1.1999. THE complainant approached opposite party No. 1 on 4.1.1999 and opposite party made demand of Rs. 4,200/- for gas connection, gas stove and two cylinders. THE complainant requested the opposite party to release the gas connection without the gas stove but the opposite party refused to do so. Hence, he filed the complaint praying therein for release of gas connection and compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite party No. 2 was proceeded ex parte whereas opposite party No. 1 admitted in its reply that the complainant had booked the gas connection in 1995 and a letter dated 28.12.1998 was sent to him to get the gas connection. Other allegations levelled against opposite party No. 1 were denied. Furthermore, it was submitted that the gas connection of the complainant was transferred to M/s. Sood Gas Service on 21.1.1999 much before filing of the present complaint and as such complaint may be dismissed with costs. After considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsels for both the parties and perusing the relevant documents, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that opposite party No. 1 had committed deficiency in service by not releasing the gas connection and passed the aforementioned order which is being challenged in this appeal.

In appeal before us, Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant was present but no one represented the respondent. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant was that there was no deficiency in rendering service in the present case and the case was filed to malign the name of the appellant and to extract money. This contention holds no ground as per the record of the case before us. The appellant sent letter to the complainant on 28.12.1998 to get the gas connection. The complainant approached them without delay on 29.12.1998 as he was keen to get the gas connection released on his name as soon as possible. As per the version of the complainant, he declined to accede to demand of the gas agency, therefore, he was refused release of the gas connection. The consumer has ought to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation under the Consumer Protection Act. We are satisfied that the grievance of the complainant was justified as the complainant was not given the L.P.G. connection as per his wishes and he was deprived of his right.

FOR the reasons recorded above, we find no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order of the District FORum is upheld. Appeal dismissed.