IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the  17^th  day of   November  2009

CC.301/2005

N.Sadanandan,

Nadukkeyparambil House,

Chavasseriparambu,                                         Complainant

P.O.Chavasseri

1. Manager,

   TR Gopi,

    TR Gas Agency,

    Mattannur.P.O.

     (Rep. by Adv.M.Preman)

2. Senior Area Manger,                                    Opposite parties

    Indane Area Office,

    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

    Kochi.

    (Rep. by Adv.P.C.Sarathchandran)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to supply refilled gas cylinder regularly with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost.

            The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of opposite parties. But the opposite parties are not supplying refilled gas cylinder regularly even though the complainant and his wife have gas connection. The 1^st opposite party is showing personal grudge towards the complainant and hence 1^st opposite party was not supplying even after the expiry of 3 months and 24 days from the date of booking. The complaint and his wife have been running a stationary shop and hence during day time the house will be closed and the complainant used to take delivery of the gas from the opposite parties gas agency. But later on the opposite parties refused to give delivery from shop and assured that they will give door delivery and this was due to personal grudge. Above all the 1^st opposite party was not ready to give subsidy and only after filing the complaint before Regional office the 1^st opposite party is giving subsidy. The 1^st opposite party had given the second connection instead of additional cylinder for first connection by saying that they cannot give the additional cylinder, but only connection. So the complaint had taken 2^nd connection without regulator, rubber tube and stove, even though he has paid for regulator also. Even after repeated request the opposite party was not ready to supply refilled gas cylinder. So the opposite parties have shown deficiency of service and hence the complainant is entitled to get regular supply of gas with compensation. Hence this complaint.

            On receiving notices, both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 1^st opposite party admitted that  he is a recognized dealer of LPG of Indian oil corporation and is working as per the rules and regulations of IOC and also admitted that the complainant is a consumer. At the time of availing connection the 1^st opposite party had extracted only Rs.950/- which includes Rs.850/- as deposit for cylinder and Rs.100/- for regulator. The 1^st opposite party has been supplying gas cylinder as per priority list and  to the complainant also they were supplied according to priority. It is true that the complainant is receiving cylinder as per ‘cash N carry’. But later on IOC had instructed the 1^st opposite party to stop the cash and carry and for door delivery and the 1^st opposite party is receiving the charge for door delivery as per the instruction of concerned authorities. The 1^st opposite party has no personal grudge towards the complainant. Moreover it is the instruction of IOC to extract Rs.950/- towards the deposit of cylinder and regulator from each consumer and hence the 1^st opposite party has acted as per the instructions of 2^nd opposite party. So there is no deficiency or cheating or unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            The 2^nd opposite party also filed version admitting that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party. According to 2^nd opposite party as per the records maintained by 1^st opposite party during the normal course of its business, the refills were released to him during a period of 8 months since connection has became alive, and the last refill released to him was on  19.11.2005 against the booking made on 25.10.05. the IOC after much deliberation and discussion, it was insisted upon 100% door delivery to ensure transparency in the release and  delivery of LPG refills to the  consumers for domestic purpose an hence as a matter of policy for protecting the interest of the consumer, the  cash and carry scheme is not promoted and door delivery insisted. Moreover the consumer has to pay extra charge for carrying the LPG refill beyond the free delivery area of 5 km. from the distributors shop and the additional extra charge for door delivery is fixed by District collector and opposite party has no role in fixing the same. All distributors have to issue cash memos when LPG refills are delivered and any extra charge levied also will find a place in the cash memo issued to the consumer and hence the consumer can insist for cash memos for the refills as well as extra delivery charges an in default complainant can lodge a complaint to the concerned officer of 2^nd opposite party whose address is prominently exhibited in the office of the distributor and no complaint was received from the complainant. It is submitted that   in the past the consumer were entitled to get cash rebate of Rs.8/- for cash and carry supply. But now the scheme is shelved for protecting the interest of consumer. So the complainant has not suffered any loss and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above contention the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 (3) and B1 and B2.

Issue Nos. 1 to3

            The complainant’s case is that due to personal grudge, the 1^st opposite party is not supplying refilled gas cylinder regularly, not providing subsidy, levying extra charge for door supply even in the free delivery area and not provided gas as cash and carry system. The further case is that 1^st opposite party had extracted the deposit amount for regulator from the complainant’s wife without supplying the regulator. In order to prove his case, he himself as examined as PW1 and his wife as PW2 and Ext.A1 to A5 (3) were marked. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the subscription voucher for 5 Kg. and according to the complainant himself the OP1 had  returned back the amount as per this at the time of surrendering 5 Kg. connection.  A2 is the subscription voucher dtd.10.3.05 and as per this the complainant had availed a gas connection including a cylinder and a regulator after depositing an amount of Rs.950/-.  A3 and A4 are bills issued for installation and checking.  A5 series are bills issued for refilled cylinders.  The opposite party No.1 is examined as PW1 and has produced Ext.B1 and B2.  Ext.B1 is a circular issued by IOC and B2 is a photocopy of Customer History Card.

            While going through the Ext.B2 Customer History Card it can be seen that the complainant had taken delivery of 7 refilled gas cylinders for a period from 10.3.05 to 19.11.2005. In spite of this the complainant’s wife also taken a connection on 10.3.2005  and she has also taken delivery of refilled gas cylinder.  So the contention of the complainant that the OP1 is showing reluctance in supplying refilled gas cylinder cannot be taken into consideration.

            The Ext.A5 (1) to A5 (3) are the bills issued for refilled gas cylinder.  As per Ext.A5(1) and A5(2) bill the amount was shown as Rs.292.89/- after deducting cash and carry rebate amount of Rs.8/-.  But the Ext.A5 (3) bill is for an amount of Rs.302.50/-.  The CNL rebate is not deducted from the bill.  The explanation given by the OP1 is that the complainant has taken delivery of the gas as per Ext.A5(1) and (2) as ‘Cash N Carry’ and as per Ext.A5(3) gas was supplied as door delivery and hence the complainant is not entitled to get rebate as per Ext.A5(3).  The complainant deposed before the Forum that Cash N Carry bv¡v  rebate D­v.   A5 (1) and A (5) (2) cash N carry bmWv. A5 (3)bpT cash N Carry bmWv rebate ImWn-¨n-«nÃ. The Ext.A2 along with A5 (3) receipt substantiate the above contention of the complainant. The date of Ext.A2 and that of A5 (3) is 10.3.05, the date on which the complainant has availed gas connection. Moreover as per Ext.B 2 i.e., the customer History card, the mode of supplying the gas cylinder is shown as NCD. The DW1 deposed that NCD F¶mÂNew connection date F¶mWv ImWn-¡p-¶Xp. So it can be seen that the gas cylinder supplied to the complainant as per  Ext.A5(3) is cash N Carry, since there is no chance in supplying the gas as door delivery on the date of availing the gas connection. So it can be seen that there is deficiency on the part of 1st opposite party for not providing the rebate amount of Rs.8/- as per Ext.A5 (3) bill.

            Yet another contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party had levied extra charge for door delivery even in the free delivery area. The complainant’s case is that he is conducting a stationary business and hence he was not in a position to avail refilled gas cylinder as door delivery. More over he deposed that “1^st opposite party gas cylinder door delivery  \S-¯n-bn-«neve F¶p -]-d-ª#  icn-bmWv  .  Above all he has not produced any document to prove the contention and hence this contention of the opposite party is not at all a genuine one.

            The complainant’s contention is that the opposite party was not providing gas as cash N carry status and had extracted the deposit amount for regulator from the complainant’s wife without supplying regulator. The Ext.B1 is a circular issued by IOC by stopping the cash N carry system and to ensure the door delivery. So the 1^st opposite party is bound to follow the rules and regulations of IOC and hence the above contention cannot be taken into consideration. The complainant’s wife  has availed gas connection on 10.3.2005, and the voucher was produced even though it is not marked. This voucher shows that she had signed the voucher which is very clearly shown that she had received a regulator and a cylinder. So the above contention of complainant also cannot be taken into consideration.

            But the 1^st opposite party has failed to provide rebate as per Ext.A5 (3) and hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of 1^st opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant by refunding Rs.8/- as rebate as per Ext.A5 (3)

along with Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost and the complainant is entitled to receive the same. The 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liability. The complainant deposed that cash N carry \nÀ¯-em-¡nbXn\p tijT Rm³K-ymkv hm§n-bn-«nÃ. That means from the year 2005 itself he had stopped taking delivery of gas and hence the prayer of the complainant to issue direction for supplying refilled gas cylinder regularly  has become infructous.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.8/-(Rupees Eight only) as rebate as per Ext.A5 (3) along with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to execute the order against 1^st opposite party as per provisions of consumer protection act.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                             Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

Appendix

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the voucher dt.1.3.04 issued by OP

A2.Voucher dt.10.3.05 issued by OP

A3 & A4..Cash bill issued by OP dt.27.7.04 and 10.3.05

A5.Cash bills issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy of the letter dt.26.9.05 sent by IOC to Distributors

B2.Copy of the computer print out of the customer history card of complainant

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

PW2.Saroja

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.T.R.Gopi                                                /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur