Date of Filing : 23-09-2008 Date of Order : 06-07-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.179/08 Dated this, the 6th day of July 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER P.V.Balan, Rtd.Post Master, House No.1/86, Thiruvadira, Subaraya Anantha Kamath Road, }Complainant Kasaragod.Po. (Adv. C.Krishnakumar, Kasaragod) 1. Blue Flame Agencies, Bharat Gas Distributor, Kalnad Complex, Rly Station Road, Kasaragod. } Opposite parties (Adv. Kusuma.M, Kasaragod) 2. The Territory Manager, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Baikampady, Mangalore. 3. The Director Marketing, Bhart Petorleum, Corporation Ltd, Bharath Bhavan, 486 Currimbhoy Road, Ballal Estate, Bombay 01. (Adv. B.Ramakrishna Bhat, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant Sri.P.V. Balan filed this complaint on the ground that opposite parties committed deficiency in their service by delaying the supply of refilled LPG cylinders inordinately. According to him every time after booking the gas he has to wait 38 to 42 days for getting delivery of refilled gas cylinders. The complainant therefore prays for an order directing the opposite parties to supply the refilled gas cylinder within 10 days from the date of booking and also a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Opposite party No.1 the distributor of domestic gas filed version denying all the allegations of the complainant. According to them there is no willful delay or latches in supplying the filled gas cylinders. 3. Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version jointly. According to them opposite party No.3 is a not a necessary party and the complainant is well aware about the correspondence and the action taken by opposite party No.2 against opposite party No.1. 4. According to opposite parties 2 & 3 the delay in supply of refill cylinder to the complainant by opposite party No.1 to the extent projected is not true. The complainant’s request to opposite party No.2 was acted upon and letters were issued to opposite party No.1 and that fact was intimated to the complainant. Opposite parties 2 & 3 further stated that the delay in supply of cylinder is on account of inability of the distributor to uplift adequate number of loads. To improve this numerous discussions have been conducted and letters have also been sent to the opposite party No.1. Thereafter opposite party No.1 had given assurance that he will improve the service to the customers. In that connection opposite parties 2 & 3 had also taken penal action against opposite party No.1. Hence opposite party No.1 alone is responsible if there is any delay in supplying the gas cylinders. 5. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. He faced cross examination by the counsels for opposite parties 1 to 3. On the side of opposite parties 2 & 3 Exts B1 to B7 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 6. The consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party No.1 is not disputed. The fact that opposite party No.2 has imposed penalty on opposite party No.1 itself proves that there were inordinate delay and latches in supplying the refilled gas cylinders to the consumers. It is pertinent to note that we have already passed some orders against opposite party No.1 due to their deficiency in the matter of supplying refilled LPG cylinders to customers. 7. The learned counsel Sri.Ramakrishna Bhat appearing for opposite parties 2 & 3 vehemently argued that the opposite parties 2 & 3 are quite unnecessary parties and the business of opposite party No.2 with opposite party No.1 is on principal to principal basis and therefore they are not liable to compensate the complainant. But the said contention is not acceptable. If the business with opposite party No.1 is that of principal to principal basis and opposite parties 2 & 3 have no control over the business of opposite party No.1 then by what authority opposite party No.2 imposed penalty and opposite party No.1 for their irregularities? Why did they held discussions to improve the distribution facility? All these would go to show that opposite parties 2 & 3 are also have joint liability in the fate of hapless consumers of opposite party No.1 who have to make days long outcry to get their gas cylinders refilled. 8. Further the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission relying on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of K.G. Sathyanarayanan v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors reported in III (2006) CPJ 8 (NC) that the authorized distributor acting only under authority of company and not independently. Again in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Bhopal v. Rajeshkumar Prajapati & Ors reported in 2008 CTJ (CP) 083 9NCDRC) the Hon’ble National Commission held that the cooking gas distributors/dealers act under the authority of Oil Corporations and not independently not withstanding their agreements spelling out their relationship to be on Principal to Principal basis. 9. The opposite parties 2 & 3 admitted in their version that delay in supply of cylinder is on account of inability of the distributor (opposite party No.1) to uplift adequate number of loads. To improve this they have conducted numerous discussions and apart from that they have imposed penalty on opposite party No.1. 10. But the fact remains is that the hullabaloos regarding the supply of the refilled gas cylinders are still in hot water and consumers are in sheer agony. No positive steps are seen taken by opposite parties 2 & 3 to curb the irregularity in the supply. Further order 9 of the Liquefied Petroleum gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 deals with the procurement, storage and sale of liquefied Petroleum gas by a distributor. As per 9 {c} of the said order the distributor is bound to maintain sufficient stock at the business premises at all times. Therefore it was the bounden duty of opposite parties 2 & 3 to ensure that the said order has been strictly complied by opposite party No.1 Had it been so there would not have been any scarcity of LPG cylinders for the needy consumers. Therefore opposite parties 2 & 3 could not wash out their hands simply penalizing opposite party No.1. It is high time for opposite parties 2 & 3 to take appropriate remedial measures to regularize the supply of refilled cylinders so as to enable a consumer to get his refilled gas cylinder at least within 10 days from the date of booking. In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 being the distributor of Liquefied gas is directed to supply refilled gas cylinders to the complainant within 10 days from the date of booking. Failing which he shall pay a compensation of Rs.10/- each per day from the date 10th day of booking till delivery towards the expenses he incur to find out alternative fuel for cooking. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards the compensation for the hardships & mental agony suffered by the complainant with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. B1.E mail sent by complainant to opposite party.No.2. B2.Reply sent by OP NO.2 to complainant. B3.Letter sent to OP No.1 to OP No2. B4.&B5 letter sent to OP No.1 to OP No.2. B6.Letter sent by OP No.2 to OP No.1. B7.Letter sent by OPNo.1 to OPNo.2 PW1. P.V.Balan. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDNT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
