Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi & Mrs. Saria Khan, Members
BHAG CHAND—Complainant/Appellant
versus
SIDDARTH GAS COMPANY—Respondent/O.P.
Appeal No. 169 of 1991—Decided on 7.7.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : None.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.K. Agarwal, Advocate.
A consumer cannot be denied the supply of a gas cylinder if the house is locked. The delivery boy should obtain signatures on the vouchers of the neighbors so that the consumer may not have any occasion to say that the cylinder was not delivered deliberately.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SEC. 15 - APPEAL - SUPPLY OF GAS CYLINDER - CANCELLATION OF BOOKING - DIRECTIONS TO DELIVERY BOY - COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant booked a gas cylinder on 25.1.90. On 8.2.90, the delivery boy came with the cylinder but the complainant did not have a coupon. The delivery boy took the cylinder back and said he would come after 2-3 days. On 10.2.90, the complainant brought the coupons from the Gas Agency and was told the cylinder would be sent within 1-2 days. However, it was not received. On 15.2.90, the complainant was told that his booking had been canceled. He enquired about the reason and was told by employees of the opposite party that when he books the gas the second time, it will be delivered. The complainant again booked the gas on 21.2.90 and was told it would be sent within 6-7 days. When he contacted on 27.2.90, he was told the cylinder had been sent but he did not receive it. He finally received the cylinder on 1.3.90 at 10 A.M. The complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum, which gave a direction to the opposite party as to the manner and mode to be adopted by a delivery boy of the gas cylinder in case the house of the consumer is locked. The complainant was not satisfied with the order and filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party had not produced any order, regulation, or instruction of Bharat Petroleum Corporation showing that if the house is locked, the booking should be canceled. The court also found that the complainant had not claimed any compensation in his complaint or affidavit and had not produced any evidence to support his claim for compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party was justified in canceling the complainant's booking because the house was locked? 2. Whether the District Forum erred in not awarding compensation to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the opposite party was not justified in canceling the complainant's booking because the house was locked. The court noted that the opposite party had not produced any order, regulation, or instruction of Bharat Petroleum Corporation showing that if the house is locked, the booking should be canceled. 2. The court held that the District Forum did not err in not awarding compensation to the complainant. The court noted that the complainant had not claimed any compensation in his complaint or affidavit and had not produced any evidence to support his claim for compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 200/- as costs to the respondent.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—Aggrieved against the order dated 8.3.91 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 227/90, the complainant has filed this appeal underSec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein). By the impugned order the District Forum gave a direction to the opposite party-respondent as to the manner and mode to be adopted by a delivery boy of the gas cylinder in case the house of the consumer is locked. The opposite party-respondent has remained satisfied with the order and has not filed any appeal. However, the complainant- appellant has come up in appeal praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite party to supply gas cylinder according to the rules and also to award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with costs and damages.
2. Facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant-appellant has averred that on 25.1.90 he booked gas cylinder on phone. He was told that the gas cylinder will be delivered after 8-10 days. On 82.90 the delivery boy came with the gas cylinder at the residence of the complainant. But the complainant was not having any coupon with him. He took away the gas cylinder back and told that he will come after 2-3 days. On 10.2.90 the complainant brought the coupons from the Gas Agency (opposite party). He was told by the opposite party that the gas cylinder will be sent within 1-2 days. But it was not received. He again reminded on 15.2.90 to the opposite party. The complainant was told that his booking has been cancelled. He enquired about the reason, whereupon the employees of the opposite party, Naresh Kumar and Prithvi Singh misbehaved with the complainant and told him that when he books the gas second time, it will be delivered. The complain- ant stated that other Gas Agencies are not acting in this manner and the gas is resent and booking is not can- celled. The complainant again booked the gas on 21.2.90. He was told that gas cylinder will be sent within 6-7 days. When he contacted on phone on 27.2.90 Naresh Kumar, an employee of the opposite party told that the gas cylinder has been sent. But the complainant did not receive the gas cylinder. According to the complainant he received the gas cylinder on 1.3.90 at 10 A.M. The complainant stated that this has affected him problems considerably and he had to face many problems. On account of that he has suffered bodily and mentally. He, therefore, filed the complaint dated 30.7.90. It was stated in the last para of the complaint as under—
“MAHODYA PRARTHI KO DINANK 25 JANUARY SE GAS CYLINDER UPLABDH NAHI HONE KE KARAN KAI PARESHANIYON KA SAMNA KARNA PAD RAHA HAI TATHA MANSIK AGHAT BHI PAHUCHA HAI, JISKE KARAN MERI KARYA KUSHALTA PAR PRATIKUL PRABHAV PADA HAI ATEH AAPSE ANURODH HAI KI SABHI KO JO MANSIK VA SHARIRIK YATNAEN PAHUCHI HAI USKE PRATI NYAY KIYA JAYE.”
3. The opposite party filed the version of the case refuting the allegations made in the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant booked the gas on 25.1.90. The gas was sent on 8.2.90 but as he had no coupon, it was returned on 8.2.90. The complainant took the coupon from the gas agency. The gas cylinder was again sent on 12.2.90 and the delivery was to be made on that day but the complainant was not there. The house was locked and he came back. On 15.2.90 the complainant was apprised of the cancellation of the booking. It was denied that there was any misbehaviour of Naresh Kumar. On 21.2.90 the complainant again got the gas booked and it was delivered to him. It was denied that with respect to the cancellation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, has not prescribed any procedure. It was stated that the policy adopted by the Company is justified. Certain other objections were taken under the Head additional pleas. The opposite party submitted a photostat copy of the order dated 27.7.90 by which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default previously. Photostat copy of the affidavit and distribution
