BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD: THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 210/2015 Filed on 19/05/2015

ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.  The complaint in short is that the complainant was a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party Gas agency and he booked for gas cylinder during the 1^st week of March 2015 and when made enquires on 30^th March he was told to make fresh booking as the financial year was over.  Hence on 01/04/2015 the complainant booked for cylinder and on 04/04/2015 he was told that there will be delay in supply of gas.  Further case of the complainant is that on 13/05/2015, when the complainant made enquiry, he was informed that the cylinder would be delivered on 14/05/2015.  But on that day also the cylinder was not delivered.  Hence the complainant lodged the complaint with the customer care of the opposite party.  The further complaint of the complainant is that because of the delay in delivery of the cylinder he was forced to use induction cooker for cooking propose and the same resulted in hike in electricity bills.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party is not a necessary party to this complaint.  The 1^st opposite party further contended that that relation between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is of principal to principal respectively, as per the distributorship agreement between the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party contended that during the month of April 15, due to frequent harthal and continuous labour strike in the bottling plant, supply of LPG cylinders were delayed to all agencies and they have made alternative arrangements for supply from Tuticorin thereby tried its level best to minimise the inconvenience of the customer to a certain extent though hardly sufficient to meet the requirement.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the shortage in supply of gas cylinder was reason beyond the control of the 2^nd opposite party.  By raising this contentions, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 to P6 on the side of the complainant.    DW1, DW2 and Ext.D1 from the side of the opposite parties. 
4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

                   on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

5. Heard both sides.  Perused records, affidavit and documents.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P6 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of order place in IVRS service dated 02/04/2015.  Ext.P2 is the copy of the complaint to the Bharath Petroleum Customer Care Reference No.694218.  Ext.P3 is the copy of electricity bill sated 24/12/2014.  Ext.P4 is the copy of electricity bill dated 25/02/2015.  Ext.P5 is the copy of electricity bill dated 29/04/2015.  Ext.P6 is the copy of letter dated 10/10/2012.  The admitted facts in this case are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and that he has booked a cylinder from the opposite party and that there was a delay of around 45 days in delivery in the gas cylinder.  One of the contention raised by the opposite party to defend the delay in delivery of gas cylinder was that there was harthal and continuous strike at the bottle filling plant and hence the delay occurred was due to the reasons beyond the control of the 2^nd opposite party.  Though such a contention was taken by the 2^nd opposite party, the opposite parties failed to substantiate the delay in delivery of gas cylinder by adducing cogent evidence.  From the available evidence before this Commission, it is evident that there is a delay in delivery of the gas cylinder to the complainant.  From the side of the opposite party Ext.D1 agreement was seen produced and marked on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.  The Ext.D1 is the distributorship agreement executed between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the delay was caused due to harthal or that due to continuous labour strike at the filling plant of the opposite party.  In the absence any evidence, we are unable to accept that contention.  From the available evidence before this Commission coupled with the admission made by the 2^nd opposite party in its written version with regard to the delay to supply of gas cylinders, we find that there is some substance in the case put forward by the complainant.  Likewise the contention of the complainant that he was compelled to use induction cooker for cooking propose and that electricity consumption was high due to that is also not acceptable as the same is not supported by any cogent evidence.  At the same time it is evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the delay in delivery of gas cylinder by the opposite parties.  Though the complainant produced some electricity bills, we are unable to come to a conclusion relying on those electricity bills, that there was excess consumption of electricity and that the same was due to the use of induction cooker.  From the above discussion we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also evident from the available evidence before this Commission that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss.  As the mental agony and financial loss sustained by the complainant was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion and on the basis of the available evidence before this Commission, we find that this is fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of this Proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance/realization.   

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 13^th day of September,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 210/2015

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT