Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/461

Pardeep kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Gas - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 461 of 15.06.2016

   Date of Decision            :  13.09.2017

 

Pardeep Kumar aged 30 years son of Sh.Baru Ram, resident of H.No.195, Hargobind Nagar, Minni Chappar, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Bharat Gas, BPCL LPG Territory Office, Village Alamgir, P.O.Tiwanan, Via. Lalru, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab-140510.

2.M/s Ahmadgarh Gas Service, Near Singla Filling Station, Chappar Road, Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur-148021.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.Balwinder Singh, Advocate

For OP1                           :         Ex-parte

For OP2                           :         Sh.Yashbir Choudhary, Advocate along with Sh.Amit

Tandon, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant being customer of Ops vide consumer No.016648 for supply of LPG cylinders is a consumer of OP2, who is distributor of OP1. In 2014, OP2 committed deficiency in service for providing LPG cylinders to the complainant and thereafter, complaint of OP2 on toll free no.18002333555 was lodged many times with OP1, due to which, OP2 stood annoyed. Each and every time, when the complainant booked a cylinder for delivery, OP2 got delivered the cylinder to the complainant after filing of complaint on toll free number of OP1, but ultimately refused to deliver the cylinder on the dates mentioned in the chart given below:-

Date of booking                         Complaint No.                           Date of Delivery

25.4.2014                                   148185                                       14.5.2014

31.5.2014                                   167574                                       11.6.2014

15.6.2014                                   179812                                       9.7.2014      

17.7.2014                                   182820                                       26.7.2014    

12.8.2014                                   279311                                       26.8.2014

31.12.2014                                 370121                                       16.1.2015

25.1.2015                                   415825                                       No Delivery

13.2.2015                                   461262                                       No Delivery

25.2.2015                                   490038                                       No Delivery

28.2.2015                                   498720                                       No Delivery

It is claimed that a distributor is bound to deliver the cylinder to the customer within 3 days of booking. On inquiry, the officials of OP1 disclosed the complainant that as per requirement, the customer number and Aadhar Card of complainant were linked with the bank account of the complainant. Complainant even tried to get cylinder from OP2 through manual booking, but they refused to do so due to frequent complaints lodged by the complainant. Delivery of the cylinder booked on 31.12.2014  took place on 16.1.2015. It is claimed that Op2 is black marketing the LPG cylinders in the area for earning exorbitant price. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to provide services to the complainant by uninterrupted and regular home delivery of LPG cylinder. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of               Rs.80,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                 OP1 is ex-parte in this case, but OP2 filed written statement by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. Subsidy of gas cylinder has already been transferred electronically to the link account of the complainant in State Bank of Patiala and OP2 has no role to play in this transaction. Complaint alleged to be based on false and frivolous ground. In fact, complainant wants to transfer his connection in the name of his wife, owing to which, complainant was called upon to apply for the same and bring his wife in company office for obtaining her signatures on transfer papers as per policy of the gas company. However, complainant insisted to sign on the documents himself by putting signatures of his wife. Company officials refused to accept this offer of complainant and that is why, complainant openly declared to file complaint for teaching a lesson to the company. Photostat copies of delivery receipts are alleged to be annexed with the written reply for showing the position of connection booking and of delivery dates of refills in each and every month. It is claimed that complainant by making false disclosure received two refills in month of January i.e. 8.1.2015 and 16.1.2015. After that when he booked refill of cylinder overtime, then he failed to collect the same intentionally and malafide from the point of delivery, so as to involve OP2 in false and frivolous litigation. It is claimed that LPG cylinders were supplied by OP2 regularly as per demand. Each and every other allegation of complaint denied, but by claiming that in view of Government Promulgated scheme for booking of the LPG cylinder online, now booking of the cylinders take place online. So, allegations of approach by complainant for manual booking also denied.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with document EX.C1 and then complainant closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for  OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Jai Pal Singh, Proprietor of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for complainant and counsel for OP2 addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Undisputedly, the complainant is consumer of OP2 and that is why, card Ex.C1=Ex.R1 for booking of supply of LPG cylinder issued by OP2 in favour of the complainant. On this card Ex.C1=Ex.R1, address of complainant given as of village Hargobind Nagar, District Ludhiana and as such, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for complainant has force that delivery of LPG cylinders to take place at this Hargobind Nagar address of District Ludhiana. As per law laid down in case titled as Nazimuddin vs. Rupak Kumar Agrawal-II(2011)CPJ-8(Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur), place where the goods were to be delivered, but have not been delivered would determine jurisdiction of the Forum. As in this case, as per allegations of complainant, LPG cylinder was to be delivered by OP2 after booking at his address of Hargobind Nagar, District Ludhiana, but the same not delivered there and as such, certainly this Forum has territorial jurisdiction, even if OP2 may be having its office at Chappar Road, Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur. Submissions of counsel for OP2 has no force that only District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur has jurisdiction because of office of OP2 situate in District Sangrur. This is so because delivery of LPG cylinder was to take place at above referred residential address of complainant in Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

7.                 It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that despite placing of booking orders on 25.1.2015, 13.2.2015, 25.2.2015 and 28.2.2015, delivery      of the LPG cylinder took place in March 2015 only and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP2, particularly when delivery of the earlier booked cylinders on 25.4.2014, 31.5.2014, 15.6.2014, 17.7.2014, 12.8.2014 and 31.12.2014 took place on 14.5.2014, 11.6.2014, 9.7.2014, 26.7.2014, 26.8.2014 and 16.1.2015, despite the fact that distributor bound to deliver the cylinder within three days of booking. Even if delayed delivery of cylinders may have  taken place after booking during period   from April 2014 to December 2014 as claimed by complainant, despite that complainant unable to show any instruction that this delivery must take place within three days of the booking. Rather, sometime the delay in delivery of LPG cylinder takes place because of non-supply to the distributor by Gas company in time or because of delay in transportation caused due to strike of transporter or like reasons, which may be beyond the control of distributor and as such, delay in delivery of LPG cylinder alone cannot be considered as deficiency in service. If delivery of cylinder booked during period from 25.1.2015 to 28.2.2015(dates already referred above) took place in March 2015 only, then also fault with OP2 in this respect cannot be found because perusal of Ex.C1=Ex.R1 reveals that delivery of cylinders in the month of January 2015 took place twice i.e. 8.1.2015 and 16.1.2015. LPG cylinder delivery to the complainant taking place under a subsidy scheme of the Government and that is why the received subsidy stood transferred in the account of complainant in his State Bank of Patiala account w.e.f.8.4.2015 onwards is a fact borne from the contents of refill delivery statements placed on record as Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. Certainly as per the scheme of Government of India, there is quota of one LPG cylinder per month. If that be the position, then complainant entitled to delivery of one subsidized LPG cylinder per month only, but despite that complainant got two LPG subsidized cylinders in January 2015 i.e.on 8.1.2015 and 16.1.2015 and as such, adjustment of excess received subsidized cylinder was to be done by OP2 by not delivering the cylinder in February 2015. So, act of lodging of complaints during period from 25.1.2015 to 28.2.2015 may be for putting pressure on OP2 for delivering an extra subsidized cylinder than that of the actual entitlement of the complaint. In such circumstances, versions given in written statement and through affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Jai Pal Singh, Proprietor seems to be correct that this complaint filed by the complainant, when officials of OP refused to oblige the complainant to obtain his signatures in place of his wife on the documents for transfer of LPG connection by him in name of his wife. This complaint as such seems to be filed after administration of open threats by the complainant to teach lesson to the officials of OP2 for not obliging him in matter of transferring of LPG connection in name of his wife as alleged in the written statement and submitted affidavit Ex.RA2. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP2 has force that this complaint virtually filed for harassment of Ops, but by suppression the material facts. Being so, complaint merits dismissal.

8.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.09.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.