DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN

Consumer Complaint No 247 of 2014

Date of filing:  10.12.2014                                                                    Date of disposal: 23.9.2015

Complainant:               Mrs. Ajmira Mondal, W/o. Sahanwaj Mondal, residing at Village: Patilpara, Post Office: Baidyapur, Police Station: Kalna, District: Burdwan.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:    1.    Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, having its Registered Office at: 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400 020.

2.    Proprietor, Kalna H.P.Gas Agency, Kalna Station Road, Kalna, Burdwan.

Present:        Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.

           Hon’ble Member:  Smt. Silpi Majumder.

Appeared for the Complainant:                 Ld. Advocate, Syed Nurul Aslam.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1:  None.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2:  Ld. Advocate, Mrinal Kanti Kesh.

J U D G E M E N T

            This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on behalf of the Ops as the Ops did not transfer her gas connection inspite of submission of application.

The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of Kalna Hindusthan Petroleum Gas Agency bearing Consumer No. 600977, Dealer Code 304260. The Op- 2 is running its business under the control, guidance, direction and regulation of the OP-1 and the OP-1 is the head office of Hindustan Petroleum Gas Agency. The OP-2 had supplied gas cylinder to the complainant till 30.01.2014 and thereafter no gas cylinder was received by her till filing of this complaint. The OP-2 was repeatedly requested by the complainant for providing gas cylinder to her but the OP-2 did not supply any cylinder to her and in this respect no cause has been assigned by the OP-2. Due to non-supply of the gas cylinder the complainant had to suffer trouble regarding cooking and other domestic purposes and due to such conduct of the OP-2 the condition of the complainant became helpless. On 20.8.2014 the complainant made an application to the OP-2 praying for transfer her gas connection to another agency, namely, Surenu Indane Bainchi, Hooghly, but the OP-2 did not pay any heed to her request and take any fruitful step in respect of such application. Thereafter finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Op-2 to make an arrangement for transferring her gas connection from HP Gas agency to Surenu Indane Bainchi, Hooghly, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 due to mental agony and other reliefs.  

The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2 by filing written version wherein it is stated that though the complainant has mentioned that she got the gas cylinder lastly on 30.01.2014 but the computer generated documents have revealed that the OP-2 delivered gas cylinder to her after 30.01.2014 on several times i.e. 18.3.2014, 27.6.2014, 28.10.2014, 14.11.2014 & 09.01.2015. The OP-2 had searched the consumer number of the complainant and came to know the details of gas booking against the said consumer number. Therefore the OP-2 is not admitting that gas cylinder was not supplied to the complainant after 30.01.2014. It is stated by the complainant that the gas booking book was under the custody of the delivery man of the OP-2. But such contention of the complainant cannot be accepted because it is the duty of the complainant to preserve the said book under her custody. So the wrong doer cannot take any benefit for her wrong doing and in this respect the OP-2 cannot be held liable as deficiency in service. It is contended by the Op-2 that the complainant never put any intimation to it for non-supply of gas cylinder to her house. After perusing the computer generated documents it is not easy to say that the OP-2 was reluctant to deliver the gas cylinder to the complainant but inspite of receipt of the gas cylinder the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum to get some relief through an illegal manner and as per the OP-2 the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation because there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its behalf. It is stated by the OP-2 that though the complainant has filed one application praying for transfer her gas connection to another gas agency but the same cannot be done because in the said application clear facts had not been revealed. According to the OP-2 as there was no deficiency in service on its behalf the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of her contention. OP-2 has also filed several documents by way of ‘firisti’ in support of its contention.

Inspite of receipt of valid notice from this ld. Forum the OP-1 did not turn up to contest the complaint either orally or by filing written version on its behalf and therefore the ld. Forum was pleased to proceed with the case ex parte against the OP-1.

We have carefully perused the entire record and documents filed by the complainant as well as Op-2 and heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant is a consumer of the OP-2 and the gas booking book reveals that she received the gas cylinder till 30.01.2014 regularly. The allegation of the complainant is that after 30.01.2014 she was not supplied any gas cylinder and for this reason she had to suffer very much trouble regarding cooking and other domestic purposes. It is submitted by her that she used to keep the gas booking book to the delivery man of the OP-2 for booking and supplying of the cylinder smoothly. But after 30.01.2014 she did not receive any cylinder from the OP-2. Further allegation of the complainant is that inspite of receipt of an application made by her on 20.8.2014 wherein prayer was made for transferring her gas connection from the OP-2 to another gas agency, namely, Surenu Indane Bainchy but the OP-2 did not take any step till filing of this complaint.

The rebuttal case of the OP-2 is that computer generated documents reveal that the complainant was supplied gas cylinder till 09.1.2015 without any hindrance. And upon searching it is detected that on several occasions gas was booked against the consumer number of the complainant. According to the Op-2 as there was no deficiency in service on its part prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

In respect of the allegation of non-supply of gas cylinder to the complainant we are unable to find out any iota of evidence that the complainant made booking for gas cylinder after 30.01.2014. The complainant has miserably failed to show us that inspite of booking by her the same was not provided or supplied. But the computer generated documents show as filed by the OP-2 that the complainant booked on several dates for gas cylinder and the same were accordingly supplied to her till 09.1.2015. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant in respect of non-supply of gas cylinder does not stand. The next contention of the complainant is that the gas booking book was with the delivery person of the OP-2 and she used to book the gas cylinder through the said delivery person not by herself directly. In this respect we are to say that it is utmost and foremost duty of a consumer  of any gas connection to preserve the gas  booking book under his/her safe custody and if the said book is lying with another person, namely, the delivery person of any gas agency, the same action will be treated as illegal. So as the complainant has done an illegal action, for such action she cannot put blame on the shoulder of others and for this reason she is also not entitled to get any benefit through this ld. Forum for her wrong doing. In respect of making application for transfer of the gas connection from the OP-2 to another gas agency, namely, Surenu Indane, we are of the opinion that prayer for transfer from one gas agency to another gas agency is not so easy and in this respect the complainant had to comply with some formalities as per the rules and regulation of the OP-2 as well as the gas agency where she preferred to transfer the same. But in the case in hand there is no document before us from which we can draw the conclusion that inspite of compliance with all formalities as per rules and regulations, the OP-2 did not take any step. Simply filing of an application for transfer of gas connection cannot give birth of any fruitful result. In the prayer portion the complainant has prayed for compensation due to deficiency in service of the OP-2 but in our view as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-2, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation as sought for.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is

O r d e r e d

 that the complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-2 and ex parte against the OP-1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of the final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

                     (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                    President       

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                     (Silpi Majumder)

                            Member

                    DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                                                (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                                      Member   

                                                                               DCDRF, Burdwan