D.O.F:05/07/2017
D.O.O:20/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.139/2017
Dated this, the 20th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Thankamani.P aged 44
W/o Prasannan
Skyline Villa, Vellikkoth (P.O) :Complainant
Ajannur Village
(Adv: K.K. Satheesh Kumar & K.T Prakasan)
And
1. Chandran.T.V aged 47
Kunnathumoola (H) Vazhakkode
Pullur (P.O) Ambalathara Village
2. Steephan
Manager
Sunshine gas agency : Opposite Parties
Indaine Gas
Kanhangad P.O
(Adv: A.K.V. Balakrishnan OP 1&2)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties, the manger and staff of Indian gas agency Kanhangad branch as Opposite Party No:2 used to demand additional amount than bill amount for delivering filled cylinder from the godown of Opposite Party. In one of such occasion on 02/12/2014 complainant had paid the bill amount of Rs. 795/- then Opposite Party No:2 demanded additional amount from the complainants husband, he had no extra money with him at that time he promised to give latter. Opposite Party No:2 had supplied a leaking, hand broken cylinder to the complainants husband, and he took the same to home. At the time of lunch complainants husband felt the smell of gas and on examination it is found that the cylinder is leaking. When informed to Opposite Party, they agreed to change the cylinder before 5pm and thus complainant’s husband approached Opposite Party before 5 pm. But Opposite Party insulted him infront of other customers and wrongfully restrained him and voluntarily caused simple hurt by slapping him and beated him with wooden stick ,. the act of Opposite Party caused severe mental agony and loss to the complainant. Hence she is claiming a compensation of Rs. 2lakhs from Opposite Parties for deficiency in service.
Advocate K.T. Prakash filed version for Opposite Parties. Opposite Party filed IA 258/17 raising the issue of limitation on the ground of delay in filing the complaint as per the provisions of CP act. According to Opposite Party complainants husband assaulted Opposite Party No:2 and, this complaint is filed only to induce Opposite Party to settle CC 1195/2015 pending against Opposite Parties before JFCM I Hosdurg. They admitted that the cylinder supplied to the complainant was leaking and when approached opposite party to change the leaking cylinder complainants husband assaulted Opposite Parties and there was a criminal case pending before J F C M I Hosdurg as CC 1195/15. Opposite Parties further stated that they never demanded additional money from complainant’s husband. And they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by Opposite Parties as Pw1, the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A5. Complainants witness was also examined and cross examined as Pw2. Opposite Party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as Dw1. The document produced by Opposite Parties are marked as Ext B1 and B2,
The main questions raised for consideration are
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief.
Issue No:1
There is a delay of six months and seven days in filing the complaint .The reason stated in the petition is that her husband was bedridden for a long period after the incident and apart to that there is a criminal case pending before JFCM I Hosdurg. Opposite Party contended that this is a case initiated as a counter case against CC 1195/2015. . As per the provision of CP Act a complaint has to be filed within two years of the cause of action, Here the cause of action arose on 2/12/2014 when the complainants husband approached Opposite Parties for changing the leaking cylinder, so The consumer complaint can be filed within 2years from 2/12/ 2014 that is on or before 01/12/2016. But this complaint is filed only on 05/07/2017 after six months and seven days of cause of action. In Smt meena Vs union of India and others 2014(I) CLT 504 (NC) it is held in even though the period of delay in unusually long, it is fir case for condonation of delay. In this case six years delay is filing appeal is condoned considering the merits of this case. Considering the nature of the case and on perusal of documents we hold that there is sufficient reason for the delay.
Issue No:2
Complainants case is that Opposite Party No:2 used to demand additional amount than bill amount while delivering filled cylinder from godown and on 02/12/2014 complainants husband had no extra amount then , as a result a hand broken cylinder was given . After reaching home complainants came to know that the cylinder was leaking. Even though Opposite Parties agreed to change the cylinder, when approached opposite parties, insultted the complainants husband infront of other customers and assaulted him instead of changing the cylinder. opposite party in their version contented that complainants husband assaulted him and produced Ext B2 the order in cc 1195/2015. As per Ext B2 the prosecution case is that On 2/12/2014 at 12 hours at a place namely Bella village Chemmattamvayal while Pw1 Prasannan.C.D, who is the husband of the complainant went to Indian Gasgodown for changing the cooking gas cylinder, accused Chandran. T.V, S/o Kannan wrongfully restrained him, voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by slapping him and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by beating him with wooden stick, there by accused Chandran. T.V committed offences u/s341,323,324 of ipc. Ext B2 tallies with the case of the complainant Ext B2 proved the case of the complainant. The Complainants husband was admitted and treated in Deepa Nursing Home Kanhangad. The act of Opposite Party caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Demanding excess amount than bill amount amounts to unfair trade practice, under Consumer Protection Act delaying to change the leaking cylinder after knowing the consequences increases the gravity of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, more over by assaulting a consumer on demand to change a leaking inflammable cylinder and thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant are gross deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. Even after the interference of the area manager Opposite Parties delayed 10 days to change the leaking cylinder. Ext A1, A2 and A3 and Ext B2 proves clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
Issue No:3
Since the Complainant was failed to comply the illegal demand of additional amount to Opposite Party No:2 on 02/12/2016 a leaking hand broken cylinder was given which caused mental agony to the complainant . While informing the leaking of the cylinder to Opposite Party No: 1,he agreed to change the cylinder .but when complainants husband approached him in godown Opposite Party insulted and assaulted him as a result he was under gone treatment and Hosdurg Police initiated CC-1195/2015 against them. Even though the case was settled between parties it caused severe mental agony and financial loss for long period. The opposite parties took 10 days to change the leaking cylinder after the inspection and order of area manager. Keeping a leaking cylinder inside the house caused severe mental agony to the complainant. No document is produced before the commission to prove that Opposite Party No:1 has taken any steps either to change the leaking cylinder or took any disciplinary action against Opposite Party No:2. Hence both Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant. The documents produced by both parties proves that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 and 2, and complainant was entitled to get the loss compensated by Opposite Parties. We are unable to grant .the claim of the complainant of Rs 2 lakhs, as it is without any basis..Considering the nature of the case we are of the view that an amount of Rs 15000/-is a genuine compensation in this case. The opposite parties jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing .opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant along with Rs 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost.
Time for compliance is 30 Days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- A letter issued by Anandh Dt: 10/12/2014
A2- letter issued by Paul A.P to Chief Area Manager Kozhikode Dt:24/04/2015
A3- letter issued by complainant to Area Manager
A4& A5- Newspaper cutting
B1- copy of OP recorded
B2- Judgement copy in CC- No.1195/2015
Witness Examined
Pw1- Thankamani.P
Pw2- Prasannan.C.D
Dw1- Chandran
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
