Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/18

Vishwakarma Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Mishra

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 210/- as refund of delivery charge and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as harassment cost and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

2       The case of the complainant in short is that he is LPG  consumer of O.P. No.1 and 2 vide consumer connection No. 612558 allotted on 05.06.2015. Further case is that on booking of the cylinders he received massage of acceptance but later on he receives massage regarding cancelation of the booking without any cause ( It is essential to mention here that the column related to date and cash memo number in para 2 are blank). In urgency he picks cylinders from outlet of the O.P. No.2 and pays the amount of the bill which includes the delivery charges but in spite of repeated compliant in the month of August, September 2016 Jan. 2017 to the O.P. No.1 his complaints have been forwarded to O.P. No.2 but no action was taken hence it compelled to file this case, because of deficiency in service and excess charge by the O.Ps.

3       O.P. No.1 has filed W.S. and challenged the maintainability of the complaint petition. It is averred that since O.P. No.2 is having distributorship hence he is solely responsible for any act of his own or his employees. Thus, any act or omission of O.P. No.2 is his sole responsibility and O.P. No.1 cannot be made vicariously liable for the same. The contents of para 1 to 5 of the complaint petition have not been denied rather no comment has been given on it. In respect to contents of para 6 & 7 of the complaint petition it has been replied that O.P. No.1 has intimated the O.P. No.2 to refund the delivery charge of Rs. 18/- for LPG refill cylinders which were  picked up  by the complainant from the godown of the O.P. No.2. Further it is averred that except one booking made on 02-12-2016 there is no other booking in  the month of December 2016. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case against this O.P. No.1.

4       O.P. No.2 has also filed W.S. mentioning therein that it is true and correct that the complainant is a consumer of LPG Gas of O.P. No.2 but he never made consumer on 05.06.2015 rather he became consumer on 19.06.2015 as per allotment form. Further reply is that complainant is single cylinder customer (Consumer) and from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 the cylinders have been tried to deliver the complainant but some time he returned it, some time there was no empty cylinder and some time non was found in the house to take delivery, hence delivery was not made.The statement of para 3,4 & 5 of the complaint petition are totally false and incorrect and messages are always clear regarding date of booking, date on which delivery will be made etc. and all times delivery has been made in the house of complainant after receipt of correct amount for which cash memo has been given, hence no question to return the delivery charge. The customer always put his signature in memo after taking delivery in his house. In respect to para 6 &7 of the complaint petition it is replied that any complaint made by any customer has been immediately solved if it is found correct but illegal claim has not been entertained by the company. In this way there is no deficiency in service rather complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5       From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the fact that O.P. No.2 is the dealer of O.P. No.1 is admitted fact. Another fact that complainant is consumer of O.Ps. is also admitted fact. Further the fact that the complainant is a single cylinder customer has not been denied or disputed by any one. It is not in dispute that the amount mentioned in the cash memos is inclusive of the delivery charge and delivery charge is never being shown separately.

6       Only the fact that complainant has received some of the cylinders from godown of the O.P. No.2 (Gas Agency) for which he also paid delivery charge in addition to the charge of the gas cylinder is in dispute which is required to be decided by this Commission.

7       To prove this fact complainant has filed photo copy of six  receipts existing in his name and the photo copy of LPG gas delivery book.  These receipts are dt. 04.10.2015, 25.07.2015. 01.09.2015, 02.12.2016 ,19.06.2015 and 06.11.2015 and those receipts (cash memos) are corresponding to the entries made in the copy of the consumer book provided by the complainant.

8       On the other hand the O.Ps. have produced copy of ledger related to transaction with the complainant from 27.06.2016 to 01.03.2017.

9       On perusal of all above papers it appears that the transaction as per sheet proved by O.P. No.2 it is apparent that  total 20 transactions have been made  from 27.06.2016 to 01.03.2017 and amongst those transactions on 12 times delivery of the LPG cylinder has been made to the complainant by the O.P. No.2 and on 8 occasions booking has been cancelled because of the reasons that on 3 occasions complainant himself has returned cylinders, on 2 occasions no empty cylinder was provided and on 3 occasions complainant was not found in the house, as it is depicted from the sheet related to transactions maintained in the office of O.P. No.2. Said transaction sheet has not been rebutted or controverted by the complainant. The copy of book card being kept with the complainant and filed by him shows that on all occasions specially in respect to copy of receipts provided by the complainant the signature of delivery man is on the card which is sufficient to prove that all those occasions LPG cylinders have been delivered by delivery man and he has completed entry in the book and put his signature on said book being kept by the complainant with him which was provided by the complainant for its entry by the delivery boy. It is shows that except the entries made in consumer book there is no other receipt to show that delivery was taken from outlet of the O.P. No.2 to prove the fact regarding excess charge related to delivery charge. In this way it is apparent that complainant has failed to prove the fact that he has paid delivery charge without actual delivery of the cylinder at his home.

10     Therefore, in light of above discussion we are of the opinion that complainant has measurably failed to prove that there was deficiency in service by the O.Ps. and O.Ps. have taken excess charge in the name of delivery charge without actual delivery.

11     In the result, case is dismissed with cost.