Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/148/2015

Mr. Kulbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

3 BRD Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	148 OF 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19.03.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Kulbir Singh Kendriya Vidyalaya NO.2, 3 BRD, AIR Force Station, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  3 BRD Gas Agency, Air Force Station, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2]  C/o Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Tel Bhawan, Plot No. 6A, Sector 19B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019, through Ms. Gagan Mundra, Sales Officer.  

 ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.       

 

For Opposite Party No.1 :     Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.

For Opposite Party No.2 :     Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant who was earlier posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya, BSF Jalalabad(West) was transferred to Kendirya Vidyalaya, 3 BRD, AFS, Chandigarh. At the time of transfer, the complainant got his LPG connection transferred from the concerned authorities (Chhabra Gas Agency Jalalabad (W)) and he was issued transfer voucher. The complainant on reaching Chandigarh to join his duties submitted the said transfer voucher to OP No.1 on 14.7.2014 to avail new gas connection and after completing all the requisite formalities OP No.1 issued new gas copy Annexure C-2 on the same day. It has been alleged that in the month of September, 2014 when the complainant approached office of OP No.1 for refilling of the gas cylinder which was supplied to him on 14.7.2014 he was surprised to know that the same could not be refilled as the clerical staff of OP No.1 wrongly uploaded the capacity of the gas cylinder as 5.5 kg instead of 14.2 kg.   The complainant was assured that the problem would be resolved within 10-15 days.  But even after lapse of 15 days OP No.1 could not resolve the issue.  Despite a number of correspondences Annexures C-3, C-4, and C-5, the OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, the instant complaint has been filed.

 

2]       Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that while porting the data pertains to the complainant in software of the IOCL called as INDSOFT, inadvertently in the category of Gas Cylinder 5Kg cylinder was selected instead of  14.2 kg. Cylinder, which was bonafide and unintentional.  There was no option in the said software to rectify the wrong selection at the end of OP No.1. Being helpless, OP No.1 contacted OP No.2, who designated Field Officer by the IOCL and also wrote number of emails and telephonic calls and made personal visits, but only on 23.2.2015, the OP No.2 issued Transfer Termination Voucher and thereafter the Transfer Subscription Voucher was generated and accordingly the complainant collected his Transfer Subscription Voucher from OP No.1 on 13.3.2015. It has further been stated that the answering OP had taken necessary steps to resolve the issue but the matter was pending with OP No.2 for long time and on receiving no response from OP No.2 even the answering OP reported the matter to the higher authorities of IOCL and emails were sent to the IOCL on 16.2.2015 and on 18.2.2015. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

         Opposite Party No.2 in its reply stated that the role and responsibility of OP No.2 is to fill/refill the LPG cylinder and transfer the same to the distributor/gas agency for further delivering to the users and its role ends after the LPG cylinders are delivered to the distributor.  OP No.2 is only responsible for the defect in LPG cylinder supplied to the customer and it cannot be held liable for the act and conduct of the distributor/gas agency. It has been stated that when the grievance of the complainant was brought to the knowledge of OP No.2, the answering OP immediately took the matter with OP No.1 and resolved the matter on 23.2.2015 and the complainant has been regularly getting the supply from OP No.1. It has further been stated that there was no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.  Denying all other allegation in the complainant it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]       It is an admitted case of the complainant that on his transfer from Jalalabad (West) to Kendriya Vidyala, NO.2, 3 BRD, Air force Station, Chandigarh, his existing LPG Gas Connection too was transferred to Chandigarh by way of Transfer Voucher (TV) as per Ann.C-5.  The complainant on reaching Chandigarh, applied for the Gas Connection with Opposite Party No.1 on 14.7.2014 and was issued a 14.2 Kg. cylinder for his personal use after completing the documentary formalities. 

 

6]       The main grouse of the complainant arose when after a passage of nearly two months, he needed a re-fill of his gas cylinder in the month of Sept., 2014 to his utter dismay, he was told that due to an inadvertence on the part of employee of Opposite Party NO.1, instead of mentioning the weight of the cylinder as 14.2 kg, wrongly mentioned it as 5 kg and on this score, he was denied the re-fill of his used cylinder, as the software system did not allow refill of 14.2 kg cylinder to the complainant to which he  was entitled. 

 

7]       The complainant, after a passage of nearly 6 months, sourcing re-fill of his cylinder from colleagues and friends, served a legal notice dated 18.2.2015 (Ann.C-4) upon the Opposite Party No.1, consequent upon which, the present complaint was filed against the OPs.

 

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that the employee of Opposite Party No.1 had certainly made a wrong entry while uploading the information of the complainant in the computer system, but at the same time on having come across this mistake, had intimated the office of Opposite Party No.2 through an e-mail dated 16.7.2014 and also sought necessary instructions.  However, nothing moved between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party NO.2 till the complainant finally served them with a legal notice dated 18.2.2015 and during this period, the complainant was left high & dry to seek refill of his gas cylinder from his friends and colleagues and that too for no fault on his part. 

 

9]       Opposite Party No.1 though has admitted the fault on the part of its employee, but at the same time has claimed that the said employee has left the Job since 13.2.2015 and that the present complaint was filed after the correction in the system was made and he was given a refill of his LPG cylinder.  The Opposite Party No.1 has also clarified in its defence that the matter was raised within 2 days time with Opposite Party No.2 seeking instructions for the correction, but somehow, the same could only be done in the month of March, 2015 and till such time, the complainant could not be issued the re-fill of the LPG cylinder required by him.

 

10]      The Opposite Party No.2 has defended itself on the score that all the functions with regard to its consumers are exercised by its dealers (Opposite Party No.1 in the present case) on the principal to principal basis and no act of deficiency in service is made out against it.  Furthermore, Opposite Party NO.2 has even cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in FA No.1212 of 2011 – M/s Barnala Gas Service Vs. Tarsem Chand & Ors., decided on 31.8.2012, claiming that Opposite Party NO.2 cannot be held liable for any act of deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.1.  We have gone through the contents of aforementioned case, copy of which has been placed on record as Ann.OP-2. The contents of this judgment are clearly distinguishable from the case of the complainant at hand for the reason that in the aforesaid quoted judgment, the dealer i.e. M/s Barnala Gas Agency alone was responsible for release of refill cylinders on first cum first served basis and had deliberately tempered the priority of its customers at its own free will. However, in the present case, the complainant was not issued his refill cylinder as the clerk of Opposite Party No.1 has wrongly updated his information in the computer system which was jointly managed by OPs No.1 & 2 together.  This fact is clearly established from the communications of Opposite Party No.1 made to the Office of Opposite Party No.2 seeking necessary help and directions to make necessary amendments.   

 

11]      The communication dated 18.2.2015 (OP-1/3 Page 21 & 22) clearly establishes that Opposite Party No.1 was repeatedly raising the matter with Opposite Party No.2 but was not successful in doing the needful alone.  The matter was taken up seriously by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 only after the service of legal notice by the complainant and having suffered for more than 6 months by arranging the refill of his cylinder from his colleagues and friends.  Therefore, the harassment as well as agony suffered by the complainant and his family is palpable and is certainly on account of on the first step due to mistake of employee of Opposite Party No.1 and in the second stage the delay that was caused by in action on the part of Opposite Party No.2 to deal with the matter in priority.

 

12]      Though the Opposite Party NO.1 has claimed the mistake to be a unintentional, but at the same time, no reason has been quoted as to why the complainant was not issued a refill so that his household needs to keep his kitchen running was not taken care of.  There is also no action on the part of Opposite Party No.2 to allow Opposite Party NO.1 to keep releasing the refill cylinders to the complainant till the matter was pending to be resolved at its end.  In these circumstances, on both these scores, Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he deserves to be adequately compensated.

   

13]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-, at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.5,000/-. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

21.09.2015

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.148 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 21st day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member