In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 74 / 2012
1) Sri Gouranga Sardar,
Vill - Dakshin Kotalpur, P.O. Indrapala,
Baruipur, Kolkata-700144. ………….. Complainant
---Versus---
1) Baruipur Gas Service,
Ukilpara, Kulpi Road, Baruipur,
South 24 parganas, Kolkata-700144.
2) The Manager (Marketing & Sales),
Marketing Division, Eastern Region,
Indian Oil Corporation, Indian Oil Bhavan,
2, Gariahat Road, South (Dhakuria), Kolkata-68, P.S.Lake. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 20 Dated 30/01/2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant applied for a new LPG connection from o.p. no.2 through its dealer who is the o.p. no.1 herein. The said application was sanctioned by o.p. no.2 on 13.11.09 and the sanction letter signed by o.p. no.2 was sent to complainant on 18.8.10. Complainant thereafter met o.p. no.1 and was asked to complete the necessary formalities including submission of an affidavit / declaration. Complainant allegedly went to o.p. no.1 on 6.9.10 to submit the affidavit but o.p. no.1 did not accept the same. Thereafter, in spite of repeated approach by complainant for getting the said connection, o.p. no.1 did not provide the same. Complainant sent notice through his ld. advocate to both the o.ps. Although o.p. no.2 replied the same informing the complainant that they had advised o.p. no.1 to release the connection at the earliest. O.p. no.1 did not provide the said connection taking different plea every time the complainant visited him thereafter.
Being thus allegedly harassed, the complainant filed the complaint alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service by the o.ps. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both the o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them stating that the said complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had no cause of action against the o.ps. to file the same and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the evidence was filed on behalf of the complainant, both the o.ps. filed their respective questionnaire for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant. But the complainant refused to file and did not file his reply to any of the said two questionnaire filed by o.ps. and thus did not offer himself for being cross-examined by o.ps.
It is well settled law of the land that in the event of a witness having been examined in chief, if has not been produced for cross-examination in terms of the provisions of Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, his evidence will be inadmissible.
Complainant had gone to file the affidavit to o.p. no.1 and whether the same was unreasonably refused to be accepted by o.p. no.1 and whether complainant can prove his allegation merely on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties in absence of any evidence to that effect.
It is to be mentioned here that o.p. no.2 advised o.p. no.1 to release the connection to the complainant, but the complainant failed to observe and/or comply the requirements as ought to have been complied by the complainant and there is no piece of document to show that the complainant complied the requirements as per existing norms and rules of o.p. no.2 to o.p. no.1.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we do not find any deficiency on the part of o.ps. for want of documentary evidence acceptable to this Forum and complainant is not entitled to relief.
In result, the case fails.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
