Arrest warrants against gas agency’s proprietor

The need for action arose due to noncompliance with forum’s earlier order wherein the respondent had been asked to refund Rs 3,500 to the complainant Baldev Singh, a resident of Ropar.

Deficiency had been proved on the part of the agency and the parties had reached a mutual settlement whereby a sum of Rs 3,500 had to be paid within one month from the date of the order. In default, a sum of Rs 4,000 had to be paid within one month. In case the payment was still not been made, 18 per cent rate of interest would have to be paid on Rs 4,000.

None of these payments were, however, forthcoming. On the application filed by the complainant, the forum bench comprising president H.C. Modi and members R.K. Behl and Shashi Kanta issued the arrest warrants.

Release gas connection within 10 days, agency told
UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II has directed proprietor of Happy Gas Centre, Sector 35, to pay Rs 2,500 as compensation to the consumer for not releasing gas connection to her despite its maturity. The respondent has also been burdened with costs of Rs 1,100.

In her complaint before the forum bench comprising president R.P. Bajaj and members H.S. Walia and Kamlesh Gupta, Parminder Kaur stated that on October 5, 1994, she was informed about the maturity of her gas connection and was asked to bring along the required documents for release of the connection.

She added that when she went to the centre with the required documents, she was pressurised to buy the hot plate from there before the release of the connection. She, however, refused to do the same as she had already bought one.

Following this, the respondent agency agreed to get her hot plate inspected. The plate was found to be in order. The complainant, however, alleged that despite several visits to the company the connection was not released to her.

The company, in its reply, stated that the customer was free to buy the hot plate from any source. But the point of consideration was that the company had orally forced the consumer to buy the plate.

After going through rival contentions, the forum bench observed that there was a clear deficiency on part of the company and accordingly directed it to release connection to the consumer within 10 days.

MUL directed to pay Rs 51,000 compensation
The local Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Maruti Udyog Limited and dealer Joshi Auto Zone to pay a sum of Rs 51,000 to a Maruti Esteem VX buyer. Complainant Virinder Sharma had alleged that the car had many defects like sagging roof upholstery, rattling doors, noise in rear wheels, inadequate cooling by the air-conditioner and the noisy tyres, besides some other minor deficiencies.

The respondents had taken the stand that the complainant was not liable to get the replacement of the vehicle since the company had removed the defects as required under the warranty.

The respondents had also stated that Virinder Sharma had no locus standi to file the case as the vehicle had been purchased by Preeto Engineers for commercial use.

After hearing the arguments, the commission concluded that the ceiling of the car was substandard which caused irritation to the complainant. The respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs 45,000 as compensation to Sharma, another Rs 4,000 as damages on account of mental harassment and Rs 2,000 as the cost of litigation.

HUDA asked to give possession of plot
UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has directed Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Panchkula, Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad and Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat, to immediately give physical possession (which had been delayed for about six years) of a re-alotted plot to the consumer and also pay him interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum commencing from three years from the date of allotment till the possession is actually given.

It had been alleged in the complaint by a city resident Jagdish Rai Gupta that he had been reallotted a 420 sq yard plot in Sonepat and directed to pay the balance amount of Rs 2,65,860 in instalments. Subsequently, price of the said plot was enhanced and the complainant kept depositing various amounts from time to time. In all, he deposited Rs 4,12,350.

It was alleged that despite regular payments he has not been given the physical possession of the plot. In its reply, the respondents could not deny the fact that timely payments were made and the possession was delayed for about six years.

Considering this the forum bench, comprising president H.C. Modi and members R.K. Behl and Shashi Kanta, held that there has been deficiency on the part of the respondents. They were thus directed to compensate the complainant accordingly.

The respondents were directed to give physical possession of the plot, free from all encumbrances.