BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 424/2002 Filed on 04/10/2002 Dated : 28..02..2009
Complainant:
Jayasree, K.G.173, Saranya, Kalpaka Gardens, Pappanamcode- P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 018.
Opposite party:
The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Janshadji Taba Road, Mumbai – 400 020.
(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02..05..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The brief facts of the case leading to the complainant are as follows: The complainant had submitted her application along with prescribed enclosures to the opposite party in response to the advertisement of the opposite party dated 7/5/1998 calling applications for appointment of LPG Dealer at Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram under Woman General Category. There was no response for 2 years. On 28/8/2000, the complainant saw an advertisement of the opposite party in the newspaper, inviting applications for Thiruvallam under the Woman General Category. Immediately, the complainant sent a letter dated 1/9/2000 to the opposite party informing that she had earlier applied for the LPG Dealership and also requested to the opposite party to sent an application form to her by return of post. There was no reply from the opposite party for that. The complainant bonafidely believed that her earlier application was enough and the opposite party will consider that application also for the selection of LPG Dealership for Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram in the General Woman Category. Complainant sent several reminders and as per the letter dated 16/1/2002 the complainant was informed that the interview for the selection of LPG Dealership was conducted on 4th & 5th of December, 2000 at DSB Office, Thiruvananthapuram and eligibility was considered for applicant who have applied afresh as per the opposite party re-advertisement dated 28/8/2000. Dishearted by the letter the complainant sent a letter dated 21/1/2002 explaining the facts to the opposite party and requested the opposite party to review the selection conducted without properly considering her application and to cancel the said selection. To that letter also there was no reply from the opposite party. The hardships of an educated unemployed woman was ignored by the opposite party. The genuine application of the complainant was not properly considered and the complainant was not given an opportunity to be heard. The opposite party has failed to fulfill their part of the contract. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party causing loss, injury and hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for refund, compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as there is no dispute between the parties as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party's role in the matter of selection of LPG Dealer is limited to the issuance of advertisement, receipt of applications, scrutiny of applications received and forward the same to the concerned Dealer Selection Board for interview and finalisation of the select list. While so, the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (hereinafter referred to as the Government) by order dated 29/6/1999 suspended the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 30/6/1999. The Government also issued an order dated 12/7/1999 suspending of interviews in view of the ensuing general election. After reconstitution of the Dealer Selection Boards, the Government issued order dated 26/4/2000. In the meantime by order dated 5/7/2000 the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram the eligibility of the candidates also underwent change. On account of the new guidelines the advertisement on 28/8/2000 was issued by the opposite party. As per the said advertisement it is specifically provided that the opposite party reserves the right for cancellation of the selection process without assigning any reason. Further it was provided so far as the complainant is concerned that all applicants who have responded to the previous notification dated 7/5/1991 will have to apply afresh in the prescribed application forms attaching photocopy of either the earlier application form or acknowledgment slip or cash receipts. It is also provided that in respect of such candidate the eligibility will be as applicable on the date of the earlier application and that no fresh application fee is payable. It is made clear that the earlier application will not be considered if the applicant does not apply afresh. Therefore the applicants like the complainant who have no vested right by the mere fact of having applied in response to an application have not been caused any prejudice by mere issuance of the new notification. The complainant has no right to file a complaint of this nature. The original petitions filed by such applicants like the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has also been dismissed on the ground of no infringement of any legal right. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P8. Opposite party has also filed affidavit and marked Exts.D1 to D3 on their side.
4. On the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount as claimed in the complaint? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for appointment as an LPG Dealer in response to the advertisement of opposite party dated 7/5/1998. According to the opposite party the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & National Gas suspended the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 30/6/1999 by order dated 29/6/1999 and the Government also issued an order dated 12/7/1999 suspending the interviews in view of the ensuing election and in the meantime Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram was reconstituted and on the basis of the new guidelines the advertisement on 28/8/2000 has been issued by the opposite party.
6. The complainant has pleaded that after seeing the 2nd advertisement on 28/8/2000, she had sent a letter to the opposite party informing that she had applied earlier for LPG dealership and also requested for application for which since there was no reply from the opposite party, the complainant bonafidely believed that her earlier application was enough and it would be considered. The complainant has further pleaded that she had issued several reminders to the opposite party enquiring about the position of her application for which she finally received a reply stating that the interview was conducted on 4th & 5th of December 2000 and eligibility was considered for applicant who had applied afresh as per their re-advertisement dated 28/8/2000. Though the complainant had requested to re-consider her application there was no reply from the opposite party and the complainant argued that this act of the opposite party has caused loss to her and the act of the opposite party in not replying to her repeated reminders shows their negligence.
7. On a perusal of the exhibits produced by the complainant, though the letters are averred to be sent by registered post, they are not accompanied with the receipts for the same. Anyhow, the opposite party has responded to Ext.P6 request sent by the complainant. As per Ext.P7 sent by the opposite party, they have stated that eligibility has been considered for applicants who have applied afresh as per their re-advertisement. At this juncture, the documents produced by the opposite party has to be looked into. As per Ext.D3 re-advertisement, it has been specified that 'the company reserves the right to cancel/withdraw/amend this advertisement or extend due date at its sole discretion without assigning any reason'. Further more as per Ext.D1 it has been stated that 'the applicants who had made applications earlier in response to advertisement are required to apply again. However they are not required to deposit the application fee again. A copy of the receipt of the fee deposit made earlier has to be attached with the new application to establish that the necessary fee has already been paid'. The complainant does not have a case that she has not seen the re-advertisement. The said re-advertisement is specific that the earlier application will not be considered if the applicant does not apply afresh as above. The complainant has alleged that she had sent letter to the opposite party requesting for the same. But the copy of letters produced before the Forum are not seen acknowledged by the opposite party. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that Ext.P3 has been sent by registered post and that inspite of receipt of the same, the opposite party has not responded. Besides pleadings, it has to be supported with corroborate evidence which is lacking in this case.
8. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant has failed to attribute any negligence on the part of the opposite party which leads us to conclude that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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 Forum, on this the 28th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.424/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness: NIL
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 2/06/1998 requesting for application form. P2 : Copy of covering letter of application and list of documents P3 : Copy of letter dated 1/09/2000 requesting for application form after re-advertisement of 28/8/2000 P4 : Copy of letter dated 31/12/2001 issued to the opposite party by the complainant. P5 : Copy of letter dated 10/1/2002 issued to the opposite party by the complainant. P6 : Copy of letter dated 10/01/2002 issued by the complainant P7 : Reply letter from opposite party dated 16/1/2002 P8 : Copy of letter dated 21/1/2002 issued by complainant.
Opposite party's witness : NIL
Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of letter No.P-39012/1/99-10C GOI, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas dated 26/4/2000 for issue of advertisements for selection of dealers/distrobutors. D2 : Copy of judgment dated 28/9/2001 in O.P.No.28467 of 2000-L of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
D3 : Copy of paper notification published in the new India Express
PRESIDENT ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 424/2002 Filed on 04/10/2002 Dated : 28..02..2009
Complainant:
Jayasree, K.G.173, Saranya, Kalpaka Gardens, Pappanamcode- P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 018.
Opposite party:
The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Janshadji Taba Road, Mumbai – 400 020.
(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02..05..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The brief facts of the case leading to the complainant are as follows: The complainant had submitted her application along with prescribed enclosures to the opposite party in response to the advertisement of the opposite party dated 7/5/1998 calling applications for appointment of LPG Dealer at Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram under Woman General Category. There was no response for 2 years. On 28/8/2000, the complainant saw an advertisement of the opposite party in the newspaper, inviting applications for Thiruvallam under the Woman General Category. Immediately, the complainant sent a letter dated 1/9/2000 to the opposite party informing that she had earlier applied for the LPG Dealership and also requested to the opposite party to sent an application form to her by return of post. There was no reply from the opposite party for that. The complainant bonafidely believed that her earlier application was enough and the opposite party will consider that application also for the selection of LPG Dealership for Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram in the General Woman Category. Complainant sent several reminders and as per the letter dated 16/1/2002 the complainant was informed that the interview for the selection of LPG Dealership was conducted on 4th & 5th of December, 2000 at DSB Office, Thiruvananthapuram and eligibility was considered for applicant who have applied afresh as per the opposite party re-advertisement dated 28/8/2000. Dishearted by the letter the complainant sent a letter dated 21/1/2002 explaining the facts to the opposite party and requested the opposite party to review the selection conducted without properly considering her application and to cancel the said selection. To that letter also there was no reply from the opposite party. The hardships of an educated unemployed woman was ignored by the opposite party. The genuine application of the complainant was not properly considered and the complainant was not given an opportunity to be heard. The opposite party has failed to fulfill their part of the contract. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party causing loss, injury and hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for refund, compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as there is no dispute between the parties as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party's role in the matter of selection of LPG Dealer is limited to the issuance of advertisement, receipt of applications, scrutiny of applications received and forward the same to the concerned Dealer Selection Board for interview and finalisation of the select list. While so, the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (hereinafter referred to as the Government) by order dated 29/6/1999 suspended the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 30/6/1999. The Government also issued an order dated 12/7/1999 suspending of interviews in view of the ensuing general election. After reconstitution of the Dealer Selection Boards, the Government issued order dated 26/4/2000. In the meantime by order dated 5/7/2000 the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram the eligibility of the candidates also underwent change. On account of the new guidelines the advertisement on 28/8/2000 was issued by the opposite party. As per the said advertisement it is specifically provided that the opposite party reserves the right for cancellation of the selection process without assigning any reason. Further it was provided so far as the complainant is concerned that all applicants who have responded to the previous notification dated 7/5/1991 will have to apply afresh in the prescribed application forms attaching photocopy of either the earlier application form or acknowledgment slip or cash receipts. It is also provided that in respect of such candidate the eligibility will be as applicable on the date of the earlier application and that no fresh application fee is payable. It is made clear that the earlier application will not be considered if the applicant does not apply afresh. Therefore the applicants like the complainant who have no vested right by the mere fact of having applied in response to an application have not been caused any prejudice by mere issuance of the new notification. The complainant has no right to file a complaint of this nature. The original petitions filed by such applicants like the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has also been dismissed on the ground of no infringement of any legal right. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P8. Opposite party has also filed affidavit and marked Exts.D1 to D3 on their side.
4. On the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount as claimed in the complaint? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for appointment as an LPG Dealer in response to the advertisement of opposite party dated 7/5/1998. According to the opposite party the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & National Gas suspended the Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 30/6/1999 by order dated 29/6/1999 and the Government also issued an order dated 12/7/1999 suspending the interviews in view of the ensuing election and in the meantime Dealer Selection Board, Thiruvananthapuram was reconstituted and on the basis of the new guidelines the advertisement on 28/8/2000 has been issued by the opposite party.
6. The complainant has pleaded that after seeing the 2nd advertisement on 28/8/2000, she had sent a letter to the opposite party informing that she had applied earlier for LPG dealership and also requested for application for which since there was no reply from the opposite party, the complainant bonafidely believed that her earlier application was enough and it would be considered. The complainant has further pleaded that she had issued several reminders to the opposite party enquiring about the position of her application for which she finally received a reply stating that the interview was conducted on 4th & 5th of December 2000 and eligibility was considered for applicant who had applied afresh as per their re-advertisement dated 28/8/2000. Though the complainant had requested to re-consider her application there was no reply from the opposite party and the complainant argued that this act of the opposite party has caused loss to her and the act of the opposite party in not replying to her repeated reminders shows their negligence.
7. On a perusal of the exhibits produced by the complainant, though the letters are averred to be sent by registered post, they are not accompanied with the receipts for the same. Anyhow, the opposite party has responded to Ext.P6 request sent by the complainant. As per Ext.P7 sent by the opposite party, they have stated that eligibility has been considered for applicants who have applied afresh as per their re-advertisement. At this juncture, the documents produced by the opposite party has to be looked into. As per Ext.D3 re-advertisement, it has been specified that 'the company reserves the right to cancel/withdraw/amend this advertisement or extend due date at its sole discretion without assigning any reason'. Further more as per Ext.D1 it has been stated that 'the applicants who had made applications earlier in response to advertisement are required to apply again. However they are not required to deposit the application fee again. A copy of the receipt of the fee deposit made earlier has to be attached with the new application to establish that the necessary fee has already been paid'. The complainant does not have a case that she has not seen the re-advertisement. The said re-advertisement is specific that the earlier application will not be considered if the applicant does not apply afresh as above. The complainant has alleged that she had sent letter to the opposite party requesting for the same. But the copy of letters produced before the Forum are not seen acknowledged by the opposite party. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that Ext.P3 has been sent by registered post and that inspite of receipt of the same, the opposite party has not responded. Besides pleadings, it has to be supported with corroborate evidence which is lacking in this case.
8. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant has failed to attribute any negligence on the part of the opposite party which leads us to conclude that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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 Forum, on this the 28th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.424/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness: NIL
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 2/06/1998 requesting for application form. P2 : Copy of covering letter of application and list of documents P3 : Copy of letter dated 1/09/2000 requesting for application form after re-advertisement of 28/8/2000 P4 : Copy of letter dated 31/12/2001 issued to the opposite party by the complainant. P5 : Copy of letter dated 10/1/2002 issued to the opposite party by the complainant. P6 : Copy of letter dated 10/01/2002 issued by the complainant P7 : Reply letter from opposite party dated 16/1/2002 P8 : Copy of letter dated 21/1/2002 issued by complainant.
Opposite party's witness : NIL
Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of letter No.P-39012/1/99-10C GOI, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas dated 26/4/2000 for issue of advertisements for selection of dealers/distrobutors. D2 : Copy of judgment dated 28/9/2001 in O.P.No.28467 of 2000-L of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
D3 : Copy of paper notification published in the new India Express
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
