BHAG CHAND Vs. SIDDARTH GAS COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 chart were submitted. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the complaint. The District Forum recorded the following findings in the impugned order : - (1) that the complainant has not mentioned any amount in his affidavit. He has not claimed any amount in his complaint. No evidence was produced by him and so compensation cannot be awarded. (2) that if the delivery boy found that the house was locked it was his duty to obtain signatures on the vouchers of the neighbored so that the consumers may not have any occasion to say that the cylinder was not delivered deliberately. In these circumstances the neighbourer can inform the consumer that gas has come so that the complainant may contact the Gas Agency. The complainant-appellant has filed the appeal as stated above.