.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _469_ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING : 23.12.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _3.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Makhan Sarkar, Village-Kholaghata, P.O Kalaria (Purbapara), Piyali, P.S Baruipur, South 24-Parganas
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Bharat Petrolium Co. Ltd. Bharat Bhawan, Plot no.31, KIT Scheme-118, Prince Golam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata – 75, P.S Jadavpur.
2. Dipshikha Gas N Gadget, 103, N.S.C Bose Road, Harinavi, South 24-Parganas, P.S Baruipur.
3. Anup Biswas, C/o Nepal Biswas, Village-Kalaria, South 24-Parganas, P.S Jibantala.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that O.P-2 is a Distributor of LPG. Complainant has a gas connection of double cylinder from O.P-2 on and from 13.8.2004. But one cylinder was delivered to the complainant by the O.P-2. When asked, O.P-2 gave it to understanding to the complainant that there was scarcity of supply and the second cylinder would be supplied to him when the supply would be enough. Gas Booking Blue Book was not also delivered to the complainant by O.P-2. O.P-3 identified himself to the complainant as authorized sub-agent of O.P-2. He kept the Blue Book in his custody and assured the complainant to supply the second cylinder as and when first cylinder would be empty. Thereafter , the system of returning of subsidy amount through bank account was introduced since January, 2015. Since January 2015 . Complainant booked five cylinders. But subsidy amount has been deposited in his account for 7 cylinders. According to the complainant, two cylinders which were booked in his name by O.P-2 had not been delivered to him and that the O.P-2 supplied those two cylinders to someone else to make unlawful gain. So, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-2, the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lac for mental agony , harassment and litigation cost. Hence, the case.
Written statement is filed by the O.P-2 to contest herein. No positive case is made out by him except denials of statement of the complainant.
The O.P-3 has also filed written statement. According to him, he is a private van puller. He used to supply cylinders to the complainant having taken delivery from O.P-2. He is not sub-agent of O.P-2 and there is no cause of action arisen against him and ,therefore, the case should be dismissed against him.
The O.P-1 is the Gas Company and he has filed written statement, wherein it is contended by him that his relation with the O.P-2 i.e the Distributor of LPG is of principal to principal basis and, therefore, it is O.P-2 who is alone liable for any deficiency in service towards the consumer.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable against the O.Ps?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant and the O.Ps have filed evidences on affidavit separately..Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written version and the materials on record. Considered all these.
On perusal of the petition of complaint, it is found that the O.P nos. 1 and 3 are not service providers of the complainant. O.P-1 is a Gas company and O.P-3 is the van puller. According to O.P-1, the business of the company with the distributor i.e O.P-2 is on principal to principal basis and, therefore, it is O.P-2 who is alone liable for deficiency in service towards the complainant. O.P-3 is the van puller. He used to deliver the cylinders to the complainant having taken the same from the godown of the distributor i.e O.P-2. So, in the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is found that the O.P nos. 1 and 3 are not the service providers of the complainant and, therefore, the instant complaint appears to be not maintainable against the O.P nos. 1 and 3. It is maintainable only against the distributor i.e O.P-2.
Point no.1 is thus primarily answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3 :
Now to see whether the complainant has been able to establish the deficiency in service against the O.P-2 i.e the distributor of LPG.
The main plank of the grievance of the complainant is that the distributor has withdrawn 7 cylinders in his name; but he has not delivered 7 cylinders to the complainant. According to him, only 5 cylinders have been delivered to him and the two cylinders have been sold away by the distributor to someone else in order to make unlawful gain. To prove this allegation against the distributor, the complainant has relied upon two documents i.e i) Domestic Gas Consumer Card, commonly called Blue Book and ii) The SBI Passbook bearing no. 34617674763. A perusal of the pass book shows that during the period from 4.4.2015 to 27.8.2015 the subsidy amount has been credited to the account of the complainant on 7 days i.e on 4.4.2015, 15.4.2015, 22.6.2015, 4.7.2015,14.7.2015 , 20.8.2015 and 27.8.2015. These entries of the passbook go to establish unerringly that the subsidy amounts have been credited to the accounts of the complainant in respect of 7 cylinders. A perusal of the Blue Book reveals that only five cylinders have been delivered to the complainant during that period by the O.P-2 i.e on 22.2.2015, 11.4.2015, 29.5.2015, 12.7.2015 and 25.8.2015. From the entries of Blue Book and the entries of bank passbook , it can be concluded safely that 7 cylinders were issued by the O.P-2 in the name of the complainant and out of them only 5 cylinders were delivered to the complainant. The entries of blue book and that of Bank Pass book are not at all challenged by the O.P-2. That apart, O.P-2 does not furnish any explanation as to why five cylinders only have been delivered to the complainant when subsidy amounts for 7 cylinders have been credited to the account of the complainant. It implies and implies only that O.P-2 does not have any explanation ,much less any plausible explanation. Absence of any such explanation from the O.P-2 establishes only that the O.P-2 did not deliver two cylinders to the complainant, although he issued those two cylinders in the name of the complainant. Non-delivery of two cylinders to the complainant is undoubtedly an act of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-2 and O.P-2 will have to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to such deficient service of O.P-2.
Point nos. 2 and 3 are thus answered accordingly .
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P-2 with a cost of Rs.10,000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P nos. 1 and 3 without cost.
The O.P-2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for loss caused to him by non-delivery of two cylinders, harassment and mental agony ,within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
