(1.) All the aforesaid appeals wherein a legal question of law has been raised and their facts being on identical lines, are being disposed of by this Common Order.
(2.) In order to give a general picture of the facts available in these appeals, we take up Appeal No.648/1998, Rajasthan Gases Ltd. V/s. G. B. Mathur and Ors. , and eight others as a model case which has been disposed of by the District Forum, Nagaur. It is undisputed between the parties that the appellant Rajasthan Gases Ltd. , Jaipur is the supplier of liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and stationed at Jaipur and its local dealer in Ladnun is Shri Balaji Gas Agencies. The consumers - respondent Nos.1 to 8 are the persons who have applied to obtain the LPG connection for supplying it at their houses. Each of the consumer has paid an amount of Rs.1,500/- as security advance and Rs.250/- as service charges with the respondent No.9 (dealer) Shri Balaji Gas Agencies. It is the grievance of the consumers - respondent Nos.1 to 8 that though they were provided the LPG connection in the year 1994 onwards and were supplied the gas refills to them till the month of September, 1996 but thereafter w. e. f. October, 1996, the dealer started giving deficient services to them by non-providing the gas refills as and when they asked for. Instead the dealer started to supply the gas refills to other persons who were in need of it for their matrimonial functions, etc. This resulted in the non-supply of gas refills to the consumers - respondents. That inspite of complaints to the supplier i. e. the appellant, neither the dealer nor the appellant came to their rescue and thus they had to approach the learned District Forum to seek directions against the supplier (appellant) and the dealer (respondent No.9) to refund to them not only the security advance money but also to pay them compensation as demanded by each of them along with cost of litigation.
(3.) This complaint and so also the other complaints were opposed by the appellant as also by the dealer-respondent. The appellant has mainly raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the District Forum concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in view of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties besides contesting them on merits.