SHASHI GAS AGENCY Vs. SATYABHAMMA CHACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) the opposite party-appellant questions the correctness and legality of the order dated July 26,1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur. By the impugned order, the opposite-party-appellant was directed to refill the gas cylinder of the complainant within seven days from the date of booking and further it awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.500/- for not refilling the gas cylinder in time.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal, briefly put are these : the opposite party is the authorised agent of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for supplying gas to the consumers. The complainant-respondent is a registered consumer and number allotted to her is 704115. It is said that the complainant got booked for refilling gas cylinder three months prior to the filing to the complaint but the refilling cylinder was not delivered. Her case is that according to the rules and instructions in vogue refilled gas cylinder should have been supplied within two or three days. Various persons approaches were made by her. Her husband who is a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, also phoned eight or ten times reminding for sending refilled gas cylinders. A peon by name Arun was sent with a request for supplying refilled cylinder but all these efforts were of no avail. According to the complainant, the opposite-party-appellant commits illegalities and irregularities in supplying the refilled gas cylinders. As the registers relating to stock booking and supplying of gas cylinders maintained by the opposite-party-appellant do not tally. As the gas cylinder was not supplied in time, she spent three times the cost of the gas cylinder in purchasing kerosene and on account of the use of kerosene, her kitchen was spoiled and the walls became black due to the smoke. She claimed Rs.1,500/- as compensation though according to her the compensation is incapable of valuation. She filed the complaint dated 24.11.89 praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite party to supply refilled gas cylinder soon after the booking except under unusual circumstances and to restrain it from doing black-marketing of the refilled gas cylinders. A prayer was made for the examination of the record maintained by the opposite-party-appellant. Compensation as detailed in paras 10 and 11 was claimed beside Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint. The opposite party filed version of the case dated 19.1.90 refuting the allegations made in the complaint. It pleaded that it is wrong on the part of the complainant to say that the refilled cylinder was not supplied even though booking was made three months prior to the filing of the complaint. In para 2 of the version of the case, following statement was submitted : - S. No . Date of gas booking Date of delivery Coupon No. received from the consumer 1.31.08.89 17.09.89 26631 2.21.09.89 21.10.89 26632 3.27.10.89 31.11.89 26634 4.10.12.89 12.12.89 26635

(3.) In support of this plea, the opposite-party filed photo stat copies of the bills of refilled gas cylinders. It was submitted that HPC was not making adequate and sufficient supply of gas cylinders for the last three and four months and the cylinders which were received from it were not sufficient to meet the demand and as a result of that, the gas cylinders were supplied even one month after the date of booking. The averments relating to illegalities, irregularities and black marketing of the gas cylinders were stoutly denied. A plea was taken that there is restriction of supply a refilled gas cylinder within 21 days from the date when the last gas cylinder had been supplied and in that connection reference was made to Order No. Rasad/ra. Gas/88/194 dated 25.1.88, issued by the Collector (Supplies), Jaipur, A photo stat copy of that order was submitted. It is pertinent to refer the four clauses which have bearing on the question involved. They are as under : -The case of the opposite-party appellant is that the instructions contained in the above order are very well known to all the consumers for the order was given publicity by publishing in the newspapers. It was submitted that the reafter proper supply of the gas cylinders has been made to the complainant. The gas cylinders are being supplied regularly according to turn. On the basis of these premises in the version of the case, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent may be dismissed. As stated above, version of the case was filed on 19.1.90. Thereafter, 30.1.90,24.4.90,24.3.90,21.4.90 and 26.5.90 were fixed for arguments and the complaint was adjourned for one reason or the other. Arguments were heard on 21.7.90. upto 26.5.90 parties did not produce any oral evidence before the District Forum. An affidavit of the complainant dated 21.7.90 is on record. There is no endorsement of the presentation of the affidavit on it. There is no mention in the order-sheet dated 21.7.90 that the complainant has filed any affidavit. The District Forum by its order dated 26.7.90 passed the impugned order mentioned here in above. Against that, the opposite party has filed this appeal as aforesaid.