DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 124 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING:15.11.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15.7.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Dr. Ear Ali Mallick, s/o late Tarachand Mallick of Vivekananda Pally, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sonarpur Gas Service, (Distributor Code no.99192089) of Haridhan Chakraborty Sarani, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.
2. The Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2, Garia Hat Road (South), Dhakuria, Kolkata-68.
3. The Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 34A, Nirmal Chandra Street, Kolkata-23.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Litany of his woes still continues unabated ;– supply of gas cylinder to him by O.P-1 has not been regularized in compliance with the order of the Forum passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016 and, therefore, the complainant has again filed the instant case ,alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant is a senior citizen of 70 years’ old and is also a Homeopathic physician by profession. He is a consumer of Indane Gas under O.P-1 ,the Distributor of Indane Gas ,having Consumer no. 17908. On 12.6.2016, he booked a gas cylinder with O.P-1 , but O.P-1 did not deliver the same and, therefore, the complainant filed a case being C.C no. 162 of 2016 before this Forum against O.p-1 and the other O.Ps. The said case was decreed in favour of the complainant on 6.7.2018 . An execution case bearing E.A no. 58 of 2018 was also filed by the complainant and that case was disposed of with full satisfaction. The O.p-1 made delivery of gas cylinder to him and also paid the compensation and litigation cost. The said execution case was thus put to an end. But, the sense of reprisal seems to have haunted the O.P-1 still now. He has not supplied gas cylinder to the complainant even thereafter and the booking facility through mobile phone of the complainant has also been stopped. Whenever, the complainant has endeavored to book the cylinder, it has been replied “Not done/error”. Thus, the complainant has not been able to book any gas cylinder with O.P-1 and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case again, praying for passing an order directing the O.Ps to regularize supply of gas cylinder and delivery of the same against his consumer ID no. 17908 with all facilities and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation. Hence, this case.
The O.P-1 has not turned up to contest the case inspite of service of summon upon him . So, the case preceeded exparte against him.
It is O.P nos. 2 and 3 who have filed written version ,wherein it is contended inter alia that there is no cause of action against them and, therefore, the case is not maintainable against them. Admitting the complainant as a consumer of gas connection having consumer ID no. 17908 ,it is mainly submitted by them that 692 numbers of consumers have been transferred from O.P-1 to a new Distributor at Patuli on 14.6.2016 and the complainant remains in the list of those consumers. The old consumer no.17908 of the complainant has been changed to new consumer number and ,therefore, it is not possible to regularize the supply of gas in old consumer number of the complainant. However, the O.P nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that they are trying their best to settle the matter amicably. As there is no cause of action against them, the case should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for not regularizing the supply of gas cylinder to the complainant in terms of direction passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016 of this Forum?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs, if any, as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant, vide his petition dated 19.2.2019. Similarly, the written version is also treated as evidence of the contesting O.Ps vide his petition dated 5.3.2019.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version and materials on record. Considered all these.
It transpires on record that the instant complainant filed a case being C.C no. 162 of 2016 against the O.Ps with grievance of similar kind. That complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant and O.P-1 was directed therein to regularize gas supply to the complainant and also to pay compensation for causing deficiency in service. O.P-1 delivered a cylinder to the complainant and also paid compensation amount in terms of the decree passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016 . Therefore, the execution case i.e E.A no. 58 of 2018 was disposed of with full satisfaction. All these are evidenced on record from the copy of the judgment passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016.
When the aforesaid execution case has been disposed of with full satisfaction, it is O.P-1 who has started to play the game as a part of his revengeful attitude, as it appears to us now, he has not regularized the supply of gas service to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case again alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
O.P-1 is found to be defiant of the order passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016. He was directed to regularize the supply of gas to the complainant in that proceeding. Regularization of gas supply is not ensured by mere supply of one gas cylinder. The regularization of such service means maintenance of continuous service with regularity. This continuous service with regularity has not been maintained by the O.P-1 and that is why, we feel constrained to say that O.P-1 is defiant of the order of the Forum passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016. Non-compliance of the order of the Forum in the previous proceeding by the O.P is a glaring instance of deficiency in service and, therefore, the O.P-1 will have to pay through his nose a lot of money as compensation to the complainant.
Now about O.P nos. 2 and 3. O.P-2 is the Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and O.P-3 is the Chief Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is submitted by them that the gas connection of the complainant has been transferred to a new distributor at Patuli along with 692 numbers of other consumers and, therefore, it is not possible for them to regularize the gas supply to the complainant in his old consumer ID no. 17908. We are not concerned with consumer number of the complainant. We are not in a position to allow technicality to take upper hand over the actual service tobe rendered, to which the consumer is entitled to. O.P nos. 2 and 3 hold the office of dignity and prestige. Public in general cherish a high impression and confidence on their office. The complainant is a senior citizen; he is at the door step of 72 years of age. He is not supplied gas cylinder. The Forum directed the O.p-1 to regularize the gas service to the complainant. The said O.Ps should have taken into account the gravity of the suffering faced by a senior citizen like the complainant. They should have taken into account that supply of gas is an essential service and it should not be denied to any one not to speak of a senior citizen. But, no importance has been given by them to the grievance of the complainant. The complainant is crying and crying and the O.Ps remains unperturbed. It is not the fact that they are stranger to the grievance of the complainant. They know about the suffering of the complainant and also about his grievance. They know how the complainant has been subjected to revengeful attitude of O.P-1. But they have not taken any step to give relief to the complainant. They are well aware about the grievance of the complainant. They have stated in their written version that they are trying to effect an amicable settlement of the grievance of the complainant. But, how long will they take to effect such kind of settlement. They could have settled the matter and could have given relief to the complainant by a single stroke of their pen as soon as they got the summons of this case. They have not done that thing. The complainant has been suffering for months together and it is the O.Ps who have been enjoying lucrative pleasure at the suffering of the complainant. They have been playing, as it is seen now, the role of a fence sitter. Such inactive role on the part of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 is nothing but gross deficiency in service .
It has been submitted by the O.P nos. 2 and 3 that gas connection of the complainant has been transferred from Sonarpur to Patuli. The complainant resides at Sonarpur . He is a senior citizen of 70 years old. By virtue of transfer of the gas connection from Sonarpur to Patuli, a senior citizen like the complainant has been driven to go to Patuli from Sonarpur in order to get supply of gas . Is it not a kind of torture upon the complainant? The complainant met O.P- 2 &3 and presented his grievance before them as it is gathered from the judgment passed in C.C no. 162 of 2016. The said O.Ps should have given an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before taking any step for transfer of his gas connection from Sonarpur to Patuli, especially when the complainant is raising grievance against transfer of his gas connection. But the O.Ps i.e O.P nos. 2 and 3 have not given any importance to the complainant. They have assumed the role of fence sitter. Now they are pleading that the gas connection of the complainant has been transferred from Sonarpur to Patuli and it is not possible for them to give supply of gas to the complainant in his old consumer number. The O.P nos. 2 and 3 have denied the complainant his right to an opportunity of being heard before transfer of the gas connection. Principle of natural justices have been thrown into the wind by them. Defiance of principle of natural justice by O.P nos. 2 and 3 is also an instance of gross deficiency in service on their part. We have already mentioned that we are not concerned with the technicality of any problem; we are only concerned with the solution of the problem. The solution of the problem which is now faced by the complainant is to regularize supply of gas to him, no matter what his consumer number is or whether it is old or new. The O.P nos. 2 and 3 being administrative heads of O.P-1 are duty bound to pass necessary order so that the supply of gas of the complainant is regularized without any delay, otherwise they will have to pay a heavy amount of compensation to the complainant.
One thing need to be mentioned here and unless it is mentioned, we think that our discussion remains incomplete. O.P nos. 2 and 3 have stated in their written version that it is not possible for them to regularize gas supply to the complainant in his old consumer number. They are well aware about the verdict passed by this Forum in C.C no. 162 of 2016 ,wherein this Forum has directed O.P-1 i.e the Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to regularize supply of gas to the complainant. O.P nos. 2 and 3 are the officers of IOCL and as such it is also their duty to see that the direction of the court of law is carried into effect in its letter and spirit. But, instead of doing that, they are openly defying the said verdict of the Forum by openly saying that it is not possible for them to regularize the supply of gas to the complainant. Such conduct of O.P nos. 2 and 3 does not comport with the dignity and position of their posts. Every public officer should follow the direction of the Court of Law to its letters and spirit and this appears to be a mandatory duty of each and every public officer. However, we are hopeful that the O.P nos. 2 and 3 must take proper step so that the supply of gas of the complainant is regularized and that is from O.P-1 who is the distributor at Sonarpur, otherwise they will have to pay compensation as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P nos. 2 and 3 and decreed exparte against O.P-1 with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
All the O.Ps are directed to ensure regular supply of gas to the complainant with all facilities within a month of this order positively, failing which, they will have to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation to the complainant either jointly or severally within a month thereafter. If the compensation amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the O.Ps will have to pay penalty @ Rs.100/- per diem till full realization thereof.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
