BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Thursday, the 10^th day of October, 2013

                                              CC 12 of 2013                                

Between:

T. Ranga Rao,

H.No. 17-115/B,

Srinagar Colony,

Siddipet – 502 103.                                                                 ……Complainant                       

                   And

Nagabushanam

Occ:Manager & Proprietor,

Devi Bharat Gas Agency,

B.P.C. Distributor CC.No. 161992.

Post: Chegunta, Dist. Medak                                                  ……Opposite party

This case came up for final hearing before us on 27.09.2013 in the presence of complainant-in-person and opposite party-in-person, arguments of both the parties in person heard, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                  The complainant, a school teacher has approached this Forum by way of the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contending, in brief, that he was transferred to siddipet from Ramayampet in the month of July, 2012 and then approached the opposite party seeking transfer of LPG connection on his name from his deceased father’s name on which he was asked to furnish death certificate of his father. The complainant has further contended that when he produced the said certificate, the opposite party asked him to bring his mother and that when he informed about her demise, the opposite party no. 1 asked him to bring her death certificate along with his brothers and sisters and his own affidavit. As per the complainant, he visited office of the opposite party at Chegunta but as opposite party was absent, he kept the death certificates and his affidavit with the Assistant of opposite party and returned back to his place of working, Siddipet. The complainant has also contended that he took several rounds to the office of the opposite party and also visited the Regional office at Hyderabad to get an endorsement on the above said papers but there was no progress in the matter of transfer of the LPG Connection. The further case of the complainant is that he made several phone calls to opposite party apart from visiting personally to his office at the cost of his limited casual leaves and also sitting on deeksha in front of the office, but there was no proper response and that he was asked to wait on flimsy grounds like mistake appearing in his papers about his name, failure of computer at the head office etc., Thus, as per the complainant, he suffered physical and mental strain apart from financial loss in purchasing LPG Cylinder without the benefits of the subsidy since 31.03.2012 and also exhausting all his leaves. On these counts he prayed compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, damages of Rs. 20,000/- with litigation cost by ordering transfer of LPG connection on his name and address at Siddipet.

2.            The opposite party filed written version and opposed the claim on the ground, in brief, that the delay in effecting transfer of LPG connection in favour of the complainant was occurred on account of some error in SAP – Portal at the head office, Mumbai and other official unavoidable procedure but not due to any negligence on the part of the opposite party because he was only distributor of the Gas agency without any authority to effect change of name and address of a customer. As per the opposite party, in fact the complainant caused so much of torture and mental stress to him by repeatedly visiting his office, making phone calls and sitting on deeksha even after he was informed about the actual official procedure and the problem at the head office with a request to wait for some more time. The opposite party has also stated that on 16.04.2013 the LPG connection was transferred to Sidkdipet after effecting change of name as requested by the complainant. For these reasons the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.                 The complainant has relied on the documents under Exs. A1 to A4 to substantiate his claim. The opposite party has filed his evidence affidavit as RW. 1 and marked Ex. B1 to B6, in defence.

No written arguments have been filed by the parties to the case. Heard both the parties in person.

4.                 Now the point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so to what relief?

Point:

5.            It is not in dispute that initially the LPG connection was on the name of father of the complainant, late Narayana Rao with the gas agency at Chegunta of which the opposite party is the manager and dealer. Ex. A1 (copy of LPG pass book), A2 (copy of a cash memo) and B6 (copy of subscription voucher) are the documents in this regard. Ex. A3 and B5 are copies of death certificates evidencing the fact that the complainant’s father died on 25.12.1990. As per a copy of death certificate, Ex. A4, his mother died on 07.05.2006.

6.              During the course of enquiry in the matter the transfer of the LPG service connection was effected on the name of the complainant and also changed the dealership from Chegunta to Siddipet, where the complainant is presently working. Ex. B1 and B2 are the vouchers where as Ex. B4 is the letter in the hands of the complainant in this regard. This transfer of name and address was effected in accordance with the rules after obtaining the required affidavit of the complainant in the prescribed proforma with “no objection” from his brother and sister, vide Ex. B3.

7.                 Evidently the complainant took several rounds to the office of the opposite party, made phone calls and at last sat on deeksha in front of the said office in seeking the relief of transfer of LPG Gas connection on his name and address. Even he was made to visit the regional office of the opposite party at Hyderabad for a couple of times. Infact the opposite party, at the beginning itself, ought to have instructed the complainant about the actual procedure and probable time in effecting transfer of the connection on the name of a customer and asking him to produce all the required documents at one time. But evidently it was not happened in this case resulting in complainant’s resorting to extreme step of sitting on deeksha. It is common knowledge that a consumer / customer need not visit to the place of the gas agency several times but in the present advanced times of modern technology, the things can be get done even with the use of a cell phone. But here is a case, where a senior teacher of 50 years old was asked to visit the place of his LPG distributor and also regional office of the gas agency from his working place several times. Undisputedly the complainant visited the office of the opposite party on several occasions only to receive a reply from his assistant that the opposite party was not available to get information. The complainant has categorically given particulars with necessary details about the number of his visits to Chegunta and Hyderabad from his work place with their distances. No doubt there might have occurred some snag in the software at the head office of the gas agency, but for that a consumer need not suffer inordinately. It is bounden duty of the agency to set right the things and give redressal to the customers at the earliest possible time. But unfortunately this was not happened in this case resulting in not only physical and mental strain and stress but also financial loss to the complainant. He has contended that he lost 15 leaves in moving from pillar to post and was constrained to purchase LPG cylinders at the open market by loosing subsidy benefits from 31.03.2012 onwards. Only after filing of the present case the required transfer of LPG service connection was secured by the complainant. All these facts, in our considered opinion, certainly establish not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for which he has to be saddled with adequate compensation. Having regard to the nature of the case and in the circumstances the same is reasonably settled at Rs. 5,000/- to meet the ends of justice and equity.

8.                   The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

9.                  In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month.

           Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 10^th day of October, 2013.

               Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

                   MALE MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

                                      Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

                              MALE MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy