SUNSHINE GAS AGENCY vs SURJIT SINGH

ON a complaint of Surjit Singh, the District Forum-I ordered on 16.6.1999 that M/s. Sunshine Gas Agency, Shop No. 383, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh shall release gas connection booked since long to the complainant. Besides this, costs of Rs. 500/- have also been awarded. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by M/s. Sunshine Gas Agency, Chandigarh.

THE complainant required a gas connection and his requirement was booked at Sr. No. 12697 on 4.1.1985 with M/s. Bhatia Gas Centre, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, the recognised agents of Indane. Subsequently, there were more agencies in the town and the complainant came to know that now the gas connection was to be provided to him by M/s. Sunshine Gas Agency, Chandigarh. THE aforesaid dealer wanted that the consumer should also purchase a hot plate from him. THE complainant, however, already possessed a hot plate and in order to fulfil the requirement of its inspection, he also deposited a sum of Rs. 10/- vide receipt No. 302 dated 15.4.1996. However, the monopolist dealer showed no response and did not release the gas connection. THE complainant also approached the Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 2 and pointed out the mischief yet there was no response from the gas dealer. THE important part of the facts and findings arrived at the District Forum-I are reproduced as under : "THEre is a case where complainant booked a gas connection way back on 4.1.1985. When complainant approached opposite party No. 1 for release of the gas connection, but they refused to release the same as complainant was not purchasing hot plate from them. Subsequently opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 10/- as inspection fee for getting inspection of the hot plate installed at the residence of the complainant but nobody inspected the same. THE plea of the complainant is that since he is in possession of hot plate opposite party cannot force him to purchase the hot plate from them at exorbitant rates, while releasing the gas connection. Complainant also approached opposite party No. 2 by writing a letter which is Annexure C-2 whereby opposite party No. 2 instructed their dealer opposite party No. 1 to release the gas connection without forcing the complainant to purchase hot plate but no action was taken by opposite party No. 1. It is highly unfair and improper on the part of opposite party No. 1 to refuse in releasing the gas connection to the complainant."

The learned Counsel for the appellant has made a futile attempt to challenge the findings of facts and has argued that the dealer is prepared to go and inspect the premises of Surjit Singh-complainant provided he fixes any time and date for the aforesaid purpose. It is not a case that the complainant or some other member of the family was not found. There is no evidence that the dealer deputed any particular person for formal checking of the hot plate at the premises of the consumer. The non execution of the impugned order itself reflects upon the misconduct of the appellant dealer. The conclusion is that the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

There is Cross Objection No. 202 of 1999 wherein enhancement of compensation has been desired. The District Forum-I has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. Besides this, Rs. 500/- have also been awarded by the District Forum-1 on 16.6.1999 as costs. The plea for further enhancement is declined. Ordered accordingly.