THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 281/2008
Thursday, the 27th day of January, 2011.
Petitioner : Raju Abraham,
Maniyangattu,
Kalloorkkulam P.O
Anickadu, Kottayam
(By Adv. Binoy Abraham)
Opposite parties : 1) Ambily Flames,
9th Mile, K.K Road,
Velloor P.O, Pampady
reptd by its Manager
(By Adv.C.S Girija)
2) Indian Oil Corporation,
Area Office, Panampally Nagar,
Cochin.
(By Adv. Zakhier Huzzain)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant is as follows:
He has an LPG gas connection with 1st opposite party, vide consumer No. 18091. The 1st opposite party is the gas agency and the 2nd opposite party is the Indian Oil Corporation, ie. the manufacturer and distributor of LPG. Two cylinders are allotted to the complainant on deposit of the amount as required by the opposite party. The complainant regularly refilling the cylinders allotted to him by the opposite party. On 4..10..2008 opposite party supplied a refilled cylinder to the complainant in place of an empty cylinder. Thereafter on 8..10..2008 the complainant booked for refilling the other cylinder on 29..10..2008 when the complainant approached the opposite party for the delivery of the refilled cylinder opposite party was not ready to issue the same to the complainant stating they already given a cylinder to the complainant on 4..10..2008. Since the complainant has allotted two cylinders by the opposite party they are bound to refill the same and supplied to the complainant. The denial of the opposite party to supply the booked cylinder to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed separate versions.
The version of the 1st opposite party contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in-law or on facts. The fact is that on 16..8..2008 the complainant got refilled cylinder and again on 4..10..2008. On 9..10..2008 the complainant booked for another cylinder. The 1st opposite party had refilled and issued cylinder to the complainant on 6..11..2008. There was a direction from the 2nd opposite party that the supply is limited for a minimum gap of 30 days due to lack and availability of gas. There was nod deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is an authorized dealer of 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is supplying its product INDANE to the 1st opposite party as per the availability of gas. The 2nd opposite party had issued a direction to the dealer on 15..9..2008 by Ref. No. CAD/G/12 that the supply is limited for a minimum gap of 30 days. The 1st opposite party having 23467 casters strength during September 2008 and the allotted refilled cylinder was 9792. The customer Strength of October 2008 was 23486 and the allotted refilled cylinder was 9963. As per the directions and the customer strength, a minimum 65 days gap is needer: But the 1st opposite party had delivered refilled cylinder to the complainant on 6..1..2008. The complainant is having 2 cylinders from the 1st opposite party and also using one another cylinder illegally. The gas cylinders were regularly refilling the complainant without any delay. This complaint is filed only for harassing the 1st opposite party. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the complainant is a consumer attached to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had a customer strength of 23,399/- as per the record of September 2008. In order to distribute cylinders for the customers by a gap of 30 days, the 1st opposite party needs 11,535 cylinders per month. In the month of August 2008, only 9198 cylinders could be supplied by the 2nd opposite party due to short supply. Likewise in September 2008 also only 10,098 cylinders would be supplied to the 1st opposite party. Hence the negligible delay caused to the complainant in supplying an additional cylinder cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit . The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits B1 to B4. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complainant, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party has not issued the refilled cylinder even after repeated demands. According to him he was eligible for the refilled cylinder but the 1st opposite party has not issued the same without any sufficient reasons. The 1st opposite party has taken a contention that there was strict direction from the 2nd opposite party that the supply of refilled cylinder was limited for a minimum gap of 30 days (ie. Ref. No. CAD/G/12 Dt: 15..9..2008). According to the 1st opposite party there was no purposeful delay in delivering the refilled cylinder to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party also submits that the delay was due to short supply. So, accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After filing this complaint the complainant got the refilled cylinder from the 1st opposite party. Hence the main grievance has been fulfilled already. From Exhibit B4 it can be seen that the refilled cylenders would be supplied within a gap of 30 days. The 2nd opposite party has consider the grievances of the public and made arrangement to satisfy the hardships of the consumers including the complainant. Admittedly at present the complainants grievances was already satisfied. More over the complainant has not adduced any evidence to shows that there was purposeful delay in to delivering the refilled cylinders to the complainant.
Hence we have given strict directions to the opposite parties for fulfill the grievances of the consumers including the complainant. (1) The 1st and 2nd opposite party has made arrangements to deliver the refill cylinders to the complainant and the like customers within 30 days of its booking. (2) Both opposite parties jointly and severely arrange the facilities to deliver the refill cylinders as early as possible within 30 days as per exhibit B4. (3) In this circumstances both the parties will suffer their respective costs.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents produced by the complainant
Nil.
Documents produced by 1st opposite party
Ext. B1: Receipt Dtd: 12..8..2008
Ext. B2: Receipt Dtd: 4..10..2008
Ext. B3: Receipt Dtd: 6..11..2008
Ext. B4: Copy of letter Dtd: 15..9..2008
Ext. B5: Copy of customer strength details Dtd: 3..12..2008
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
