DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.

Consumer Complaint No.219 of 2015

Date of filing: 05.11.2015                                                                   Date of disposal: 04.03.2016

Complainant:    Nasrin Mahafuja Banu, W/o. Md. Kamarujamman, resident of Vill. & PO: Rajur, PS: Ketugram, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 129.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:   1. Jyotsna H.P. Gas Service Centre, represented by its Proprietor, having its   office at Pachundi, Vill. & PO: Ketugram, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 140. 

2. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., represented by its Regional        Manager, having its office at Paharpur, Garden Reach, Kolkata – 700 088.

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:          Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party (s):  None.

J U D G E M E N T

This is a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for an award for directing the Ops to regularize the delivery of the refill and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,840=00 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a sum of Rs. 10,000=00 for mental pain and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10,000=00 for litigation cost.

            The complaint is in brief that the complainant is a bonafide consumer I.D. No. being 607547 of H.P. Gas from the year 2012, vide her connection from the OP-1. From the middle of the year 2013, the complainant used to book her refills vide her registered mobile. There was no irregularity from the side of the Op-1 to deliver the refill till month of January, 2015. The last date of delivery of refill before the complaint made before this Forum was 12.02.2015. But all of a sudden the delivery of refill had been stopped by some unknown reasons. The booking of the refills made by the complainant through registered mobile the SMS sent by the OP-1 and the subsequent issue of cash memos was made in a regular process. But the refills were not delivered on 9 (nine) occasions. Accordingly, the detailing of gas booking, order reference, cash memo no. etc. shows that the status of all nine refills is cancelled.

            The complainant moved the Op-1 several times, the distributor to show the reason of non-delivery of refills, even after the cash memos were issued on subsequent occasions. But the Op-1 did not bother to pay heed to the words/allegations of the complainant.

            Hence the case arises.

            Notices were duly served upon the Op-1 & Op-2 to contest the case but none appeared from the side of the Ops and hence the case was heard ex parte.

            No written version from the Ops was received to this end.

Decision with reasons:-

            The ld. Advocate for the complainant raised the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Op-1 in delivering the refills to the complainant. The complainant has submitted all the documents regarding her contention/averment. After perusing all the documents submitted by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant it shows that the complainant is a bonafide consumer and booked her refills in a regular manner from the year 2012 and there was also no irregularity in the delivering process of the refills to the consumer. But all of a sudden, from January in the year 2015 the regularity of delivering the refills broke for some unknown reasons. The Op-1, the distributor of the gas did not pay heed to the allegations made by the complainant and did not deliver the refills even after cash memos were issued for the subsequent bookings of the complainant.

            Most interestingly it is observed by this Forum that just after getting the notice of the complaint served upon the Op-1, the distributor, the latter i.e. the Op-1 delivered a refill on 19.02.2016 which was booked on 19.02.2016, i.e. delivered on the same date of booking, which shows a clear deliberation in making unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.

Thus the complaint succeeds ex parte.

 As the complainant did not pay any amount for the non-delivered refills, he is not entitled to the first prayer of Rs. 3,840=00.

            For non-delivery of the refills for such a long time, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            As the complainant has been compelled to come before this Forum, he is entitled to get litigation cost.

            Fees paid is correct.

            Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the Op-1 with cost and dismissed ex parte against the Op-2. That the complainant does get an award directing the Op-1 firstly to maintain the regularity in delivering the refills and to pay Rs. 10,000=00 for mental agony and harassment and also Rs. 2,000=00 as litigation cost within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the OP-1 will be liable to pay interest @9% on the decreetal amount for the default period. The complainant is at liberty to execute her case as per provisions of the Act if the necessary compliance is not made.

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

                 (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                    President       

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                     (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                              Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                                                (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                                                         Member   

                                                                                  DCDRF, Burdwan