Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/308/2014

S S VIJAYA LAKSHMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJITHA GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

T. SRINIVASA RAGAVAN AND ASSOCIATES

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

Present:          Hon’ble Thiru.Justice R.SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

              TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                          MEMBER

 

FA.No.308/2014

  (Against the order in C.C. No.07/2011, dated.30.04.2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

DATED THE  3^rd  DAY OF DECEMBER  2021.

Mrs. S S Vijayalakshmi

W/o Mr. Venugopal

No.2, 5^th Street

Sree Balaji Flats, VV Nagar

Kolathur, Chennai 600 099                                                                                     ::   Appellant  /Complainant

Vs.

1.Ajitha Gas Agency

   Indane Distributors

   # 21, North Thirumalai Nagar,

   ICF Link Road, Villivakkam,

   Chennai 600 049.

 

2.The Chief Area Manager,

   Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

   Door No.500, Mount Road

   Chennai 600 018.                                                                                      ::    Respondents / Opposite parties

 

Counsel for Appellant                             :  M/s. S. Venugopal

Counsel for 2^nd  Respondent                    :  M/s.P.S Sivasubramanian

 Counsel for 1^st Respondent                     :  PP Effected and called absent

             This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 22.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant  and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- 

ORDER

TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI   - MEMBER 

1.         This appeal has been preferred under section 15r/w section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.        

2.        The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in delivering the domestic gas cylinder belatedly along with a prayer  to pay  compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  The complainant states that she was availing   the services of the 1^st opposite party for the supply of domestic gas cylinder (LPG) for the past 17 years with Consumer No.8747.  It was submitted that the 1^st opposite party was always deficient in effecting delivery.   The complainant has got two cylinders in her consumer number.8747 and the usage of one cylinder does not exists for more than 30 days.  Though there was no scarcity for LPG, the 1^st opposite party on booking the cylinder continued to give belated delivery of the LPG for the complainant.  Though several complaints were made with regard to the belated delivery of the LPG cylinder by the 1^st opposite party through the consumer helpline,  the complaints were not answered.  Finally, the complainant sent a written complaint to the State Consumer Protection Forum dated 05.08.2010. The issue was also addressed in the meeting organised by the Civil Supplies Consumer Protection Department dated:21.08.2010.  Further several representations to the Commissioner, the State Consumer Grievances Cell, Food  and Civil supplies Consumer Protection Department was also given.  In spite of several representations and complaints by the complainant, no proper action was taken by the opposite parties who are responsible for the delivery of the LPG cylinder in time to the consumers.  Hence, the complaint was filed after the  issuance of the legal notice dated:23.11.2010 calling upon the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service for which a reply dated:10.12.2010 was issued by the 1^st opposite party.  

3.         The 1^st opposite party who is the distributor of the LPG gas cylinder filed version stating that they promptly deliver the cylinder to the complainant after 38 days from the delivery of the earlier LPG cylinder every time and hence there was no delay in the delivery of the cylinder.  They further stated that the exact period when the delay was caused in delivering the cylinder was not stated by the complainant in the demand notice nor in the complaint.   Further, it was stated that though the complainant had stated that she informed the delayed delivery through the  consumer helpline of the Indian Oil Corporation of the State Consumer Protection Counsel the same was false. Nowhere in the complaint to the authorities the complainant had  stated the month and year of the delayed delivery giving  cause of the action for  filing of the present consumer complaint. The 1^st opposite party further submits that though there was some delay by the 2^nd opposite party in supplying cylinder to them,   they never delivered the cylinder belatedly to any parties.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant had filed proof affidavit and filed documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.  The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.  The 2^nd opposite party remained Ex-parte.  The learned District Forum after perusing the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties dismissed the complaint after framing 2 points for consideration as to whether there is any negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and to what relief the complainant is entitled holding  that the allegation with regard to the delay in delivery of the cylinder was not proved by the complainant.

Aggrieved against the order of the District Commission, the complainant had preferred the present appeal. Heard the Counsel for appellant and the 2^nd respondent.

5.Points for consideration:-

 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of  the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and if so to what relief he is entitled to?

6. Admitted facts:

a)  That appellant is having  LPG connection with 2 cylinder supplied from the 1^st opposite party,   M/s. Ajitha gas Agency, the 1^st opposite party / Respondent 1 herein;

b) That complaint was filed to the Commissioner of civil Supplies Department alleging delay in the delivery of LPG cylinder to the complainant;

c)  that legal notice dated:25.11.2010 was issued by the complainant calling upon the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to deliver the LPG cylinder within the stipulated time.

d)         That complaint was filed and  was dismissed by the Learned District Commission.

7.           The Counsel for the Appellant / complainant submitted that she got the LPG connection in the year 1989 and has shifted from Arumbakkam to Kolathur in the year 1993 and she was availing the services of Kolathur distributor M/s. Ajitha Gas Agency who was the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant further  submitted that the 1^st opposite party had illegally adopted a practice of booking the LPG gas refill only after a period of 21 days commencing from the date of previous delivery and these practice adopted by the 1^st opposite party from 2009 caused delay  in delivery of the gas cylinder by 15 to 20 days every month i.e. totally the complainant could get the cylinder only after 35 to 45 days after booking.   Thus, this inordinate delay of supply of gas cylinder caused great hardship to her and though several oral as well as written representations / complaints were given to the concerned authorities no action was taken against the 1^st opposite party.  Thus she prayed for allowing the present appeal on various grounds and also reasons also on the ground that the District Commission ought not to have to dismissed the complaint without hearing the submissions of the 2^nd opposite party.  The Counsel for the complainant further argued that the delay caused by the 1^st opposite party by fixing the time limit of 20  days from the date of previous delivery of the cylinder for  fresh refill booking was improper on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Further it was argued that the District Commission failed to consider the 21 days restriction while calculating the number of days of delay of LPG refill from the date of booking to the date of delivery and further as per the citizen chart of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation the  delivery of the cylinder should be made within 7 days from the date of booking and thus prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of District Commission.
8.         The 1^st opposite party remained absent even after effecting paper publication.  The 2^nd opposite party appeared through Counsel and filed   written arguments and also adduced oral arguments.  The Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that any Consumer can book or refill cylinder immediately after the supply of previous delivery of the cylinder and there is no bar for booking refill cylinder and the only condition is that a specific period of 21 days must exist between the previous delivery of cylinder and the subsequent supply of cylinder and he also submitted that the supply of the cylinder would be made according to the seniority of booking to enable uniformity in supply of cylinder to the consumers.  Further the supply of cylinder totally depends upon the production and transportation and sometimes the cylinder supply may get delayed due to reasons like strike by labours and transport authorities which are beyond their control. Further, it is submitted that the date exactly when the complainant had  booked the cylinder and when she was supplied with the cylinder had not been exactly given in the complaint while alleging delay in delivery.

9.         On hearing the arguments of both parties we are unable to find out the exact date when the complainant had booked the cylinder and when she got delivery of the cylinder. In the absence of any materials to the said fact we are of the view that the learned District Forum has properly analysed the evidence and had dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant had failed to substantiate her case that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency in service by delivering the cylinder with huge delay. Though  the complainant had submitted various documents to prove that she had availed the LPG connection from the 1^st opposite party nothing on record was found to prove that after booking of the cylinder it was supplied to her very belatedly.   It is seen that as per the document submitted by the opposite party, the customer history Card  the cylinders were supplied on the basis of chronological date of booking.  Hence, we are of the view that the complainant had miserably failed to prove the allegation of delay in delivery of the LPG cylinder to her.  It is also seen that the complainant was availing services of the opposite parties for more than 17 years and this complaint was filed after a long period of 17 years.  Thus due to lack of evidence we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant and we confirm the findings rendered by the learned District Commission.  This point is answered against the complainant holding that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party was not proved by the complainant and hence she is not entitled to any relief.  

In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                               R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

D/S/open court                                                                                                            

INDEX:YES / NO