C.C.No.37/10 (Filed on 04.03.2010)

Between:

George Varghese,

Mulavelil Kannattumannil,

Kumaramperoor Thekkekara,

Kumpalathamon,

Vadasserikkara.                                                          .....     Complainant.

And:

1.     Madhu (Agent),

Sabari Gas Service,

Bharat Gas, Vadasserikara.

(By Adv. K.G. Muraleedharan Unnithan)

2.     Manager,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation,

P.B.No.1610, Sali Mali Road,

Kochin – 14,

Tatapuram.P.O.                                                  .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that the 1^st opposite party is the agent of the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is the distributor of gas cylinder supplied by the 2^nd opposite party at Vadasserikara and the surrounding places.  The complainant is a subscriber of the 1^st opposite party vide Con.No.13765.  He is residing within a distance of 5 kms. from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s allegation is that the 1^st opposite party is collecting excess amount from the customers residing within 5 kms from the gas agency and it is against the rules.  The 1^st opposite party had collected up to ` 50 from the complainant and other consumers in excess to the actual bill amount.  The complainant questioned this illegal act of the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  Thereafter, the complainant was not provided with gas cylinders as a vengeance to the complainant.  The complainant is solely depending on cooking gas for his house and due to the non-delivery of the cylinders in proper time, he is unable to make cooking the food for giving it to his family members including students, aged mother and his wife, who is also a patient.  This caused much mental agony and financial loss as he has to purchase food from the hotels.  On several occasions, the complainant was denied cylinder even though they have supplied cylinder to his neighbours who have booked the cylinders later than the booking made by the complainant.  The complainant has also filed complaints before Dist Collector and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation at Kochi.  The above said acts of the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and is an illegal act, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony and the financial loss sustained to the complainant and for an order directing the 1^st opposite party for supplying gas cylinders to the complainant properly.

                   3. The 1^st opposite party filed his version with the following main contentions:  The 1^st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant, as the allegations are false.  The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the 1^st opposite party.  The allegation that the 1^st opposite party had collected excess amount from the complainant and other is false and such an allegation is made with ulterior motive.  The 1^st opposite party had no grudge against the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had more than 15000 consumers and they are discharging their duties without causing any prejudice to the consumers.  The 1^st opposite party has not caused any inconvenience to the complainant or caused any loss as alleged by the complainant.  The distribution of cylinders is made on the basis of booking and as per the seniority in booking and depending on the availability of cylinder.  It is admitted that the complainant had booked on 30.1.2010.  This booking alone does not entitled to the complainant to get the refilled cylinder immediately.  It is admitted that the complainant had made complaints to the District Collector and the 2^nd opposite party.  On enquiry they found that the allegations against the 1^st opposite party made by the complainant is baseless.  Such a complaint was made by the complainant solely for the purpose of harassing the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has not caused any injury or loss to the complainant and they have done their best of their ability to render service to the consumers.  The claim for ` 50,000 as compensation is baseless and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief.  With the above contentions, 1^st opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   4. 2^nd opposite party is exparte.

                   5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only question to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant who had been examined as PW1 on the basis of his proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5.  For the opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence or they have not cross-examined the complainant/PW1.  After closure of the evidence, the complainant was heard.

                   7. The Point:-  The complainant’s allegation is that the 1^st opposite party is collecting excess amount for supplying cylinders within 5 kms from the gas agency and it is against the rules and the opposite party is not providing the cylinder to the customers properly.  Opposite party is purposely delaying the supply of cylinder to the customers and they are collecting excess money for the cylinder.  According to the complainant, the above said act of the opposite party is illegal and is a deficiency in service.

                   8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case in lieu of his chief examination and produced certain documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is a paper cutting from the Malayala Manorama daily dated 20.2.2010.  It is a news item with a photograph showing a Sathyagraha by the Ranni Block Panchayat Vice President Joy Koickamannil before the gas delivery van as a protest against the non-delivery of gas cylinder by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the enquiry report No.CS.67/08 dated 27.3.2010 of the Taluk Supply Officer, Ranni addressed to the District Supply Officer, Pathanamthitta in connection with the enquiry conducted by the T.S.O, Ranni in respect of the allegations against the 1^st opposite party raised by the complainant and others.  Ext.A3 series (A3 to A3(f) ) are the certified copies of the statements of 7 customers of the 1^st opposite party recorded by the T.S.O, Ranni in connection with his enquiry.  Ext.A4 is the photocopy of a paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated 10.10.2010 showing an allegation against the 1^st opposite party that he is selling the cylinders out of way to hotels.  Ext.A4(a) is the photocopy of another paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated 17.9.2010 showing that the 1^st opposite party is not supplying cylinders at Chittar.  Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the relevant pages of the customer’s book in the name of the complainant.

                   9. In this case at the evidence stage, the 1^st opposite party has not turned up or cross-examined the complainant or adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.

                   10. On the basis of the allegations and the arguments of the complainant we have gone through the materials on record and found that the complainant is a consumer of the 1^st opposite party.  The main allegation of the complainant against the 1^st opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party is not supplying cylinders to the customers regularly and properly and the 1^st opposite party is collecting excess price from the customers residing within 5 kms from the agency.  On a perusal of Exts.A1 to A4 it can be seen that the complainant’s allegation against the 1^st opposite party is genuine and true.  Ext.A2 is a detailed enquiry report prepared by the Ranny T.S.O.    Exts.A3 to A3(f) are the statements of 7 customers of the 1^st opposite party recorded by the T.S.O., Ranni.  All of them categorically stated before the T.S.O., Ranny about their bitter experience in getting gas cylinder from the 1^st opposite party and also they have clearly stated that the 1^st opposite party is collecting more money from them even though they are residing within 5 kms from the gas agency.  In Ext.A2 report the T.S.O, Ranny had clearly stated that the 1^st opposite party has committed irregularities such as collection of excess charges, cylinders are not providing at the residence of the customers, no regular supply of cylinders, the agency is not giving the booking number to the customers who are booking through telephone and there is no proper register at the godown for the distribution of cylinders etc.  The above said acts of the 1^st opposite party are clear violations of Sec.9(d) and 9(e) of LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000.  The news items seen in Ext.A1, A4 and A4(a) also supports the allegations of the complainant and the report of the T.S.O.  There is no challenge from the side of the 1^st opposite party in respect of the allegations of the complainant as well as about the contents of Exts.A1 toA4(a).  Therefore, in the light of the unopposed evidence adduced by the complainant, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had committed deficiency of service to its customers including the complainant and the 1^st opposite party had violated the provisions of law applicable to a gas agency.  Hence, we find that the 1^st opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service and this complaint is allowable.

                   11. Moreover, we also find that though the T.S.O., Ranny had reported certain gave irregularities committed by the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Civil Supplies Department of the Kerala Govt. having control over the public distribution system had also committed unpardonable deficiency of service to the public by ignoring Ext.A2 report of the T.S.O., Ranni based on the complaint of the consumers of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, in the light of the above discussions and observations, this complaint is allowed as follows:-

(1)   The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of 

` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party along with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount from the 1^st opposite party along with interest at the rate of 10% from today.

(2)   Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Secretary to Civil 

Supplies Department, Govt. of Kerala are directed to take appropriate action against the 1^st opposite party for the irregularities committed by him and to ensure proper service to the customers of the 1^st opposite party.

(3)   Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Secretary to Civil  

      Supplies Department, Govt. of Kerala are also directed to 

     enquire about the reasons why the concerned officials under 

     them have ignored Ext.A2 report of the Taluk Supply Officer 

     and the complaints of the customers of the 1^st opposite party.

                   12. Office of this Forum is directed to sent a copy of this order to Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Secretary to Civil Supplies Department, Govt. of Kerala along with copies Exts.A1 to A4(a) for their information and necessary action.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of December, 2010.

                                                                                                            (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                   (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  George Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Paper cutting from the Malayala Manorama daily dated 20.2.2010.  A2           :  Certified copy of the enquiry report No.CS.67/08 dated 27.3.2010 of 

              the Taluk Supply Officer, Ranni addressed to the District Supply 

              Officer, Pathanamthitta. 

A3 series    :  (A3 to A3(f) ) are the certified copies of the statements 7 

                      customers of the 1^st opposite party required by the T.S.O, 

                      Ranni. 

A4     :   Photocopy of a paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated 

              10.10.2010. 

A4(a) : Photocopy of another paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily 

             dated 17.9.2010. 

A5     :  Photocopy of the relevant pages of the customer’s book in the name  

              of the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

                                                                                      (By Order)

                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) George Varghese, Mulavelil Kannattumannil,

                       Kumaramperoor Thekkekara, Kumpalathamon,

                       Vadasserikkara.                                                      

(2)  Madhu (Agent), Sabari Gas Service, Bharat Gas,          Vadasserikara.

(3)  Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation,

              P.B.No.1610, Sali Mali Road, Kochin – 14,

                        Tatapuram.P.O.

                  (4)  Stock File.