O R D E R
PRESIDENT
1) By this complaint the Complainants have prayed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for humiliating treatment and mental harassment given by the Opposite Parties and Rs.17,530/- towards monetary loss sustained by the Complainants and cost of Rs.1,000/- towards this proceeding.
2) According to the Complainants, they availed the service of the Opposite Parties for the supply of gas cylinders to the Complainants house and therefore, the Complainants are consumers and beneficiaries under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged that the Opposite Parties did not provided the gas cylinder to the Complainants purposely which was booked on 14/08/2008 as per Docket No.135 till 27/08/2008. The Opposite Parties failed and neglected to give gas cylinder such conduct of the Opposite Parties of not responding the Complainants request to give gas cylinder in time amounts to harassment to the Complainants and thereby the Complainants sustained monetary loss and mental harassment. The Complainants have relied upon the copy of declaration dtd.29/04/1998 of Mr. Kailash R. Shirke, the copy of premium of Gas Service Bill No.6272, a copy of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Voucher No.30009438, the copy of list of tenants of Bldg. No.54 Ridge Road, B.G. Khair Marg, D-2, Division given by Architects, the copy of Bank of Baroda Certificate dtd.04/03/2010. It is alleged that in spite of pursuing by the Complainants that they reside at Shiva Sadan for last 60 years the Opposite Parties demanded the proof of their resident and therefore, the Complainants were required to approach Marine Drive Police Station. The Opposite Parties thereafter directed to surrender the gas connection by the Complainants and avoided to see the Complainants. The Complainants had to incur expenses for the requirement of the cylinder & expenses for food, etc. from 14/08/08 to 27/08/2010. The Complainants suffered mental torture because of the treatment given by the Opposite Parties which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is thus, submitted that the Opposite Parties are guilty of unfair trade practice and they are liable to pay the claim in the complaint as per the reliefs sought in para 1 of this order.
3) The Opposite Parties filed their written statement and contested the claim. It is contended that the Complainants have not made out any case for deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. It is contended that the Complainant No.1 is not a consumer of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and no LPG Gas connection is registered in her name. It is alleged that in the single room premises in which the Complainants claimed to be residing are using five gas cylinders and three domestic pressure regulators in their family. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is LPG Gas Distributor appointed by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas functioning under the direct supervision and control of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. of which the Complainants are consumer. It is alleged that the Complainant No.2 is the consumer and the Opposite Party No.1 is only required to strictly adhere to and follow the policy guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are the partners of the Opposite Party No.1.
4) According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainants had booked for supply of one refill gas cylinder on 14/08/07 on Consumer No.51620. However, at the time of delivery of the said cylinder it was found that the building Shiva Sadan was demolished and no residential premises were existed where the said cylinder could be delivered. Upon enquiry by Complainant No.1 regarding non delivery of the cylinder to her premises it was informed to her that no delivery could be effected as the premises at which LPG connection was registered did not exist. It is submitted that the Complainant No.1 thereafter informed to the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 that they had shifted their resident to Sagar Deep Building No.4 in the premises situated at Teen Batti, Malabar Hill, Mumbai on the 1st Floor, Room No.5
5) It is contended that on learning from the Complainants that there had been a change of address of the consumer, as per the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and implemented and monitored through M/s. Bharat Petroleum Pvt. Ltd, the Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant No.1 to produce the documentary proof of change of address so that the delivery of gas could be effected at the new address. It is submitted that to which the Complainant denied and refused to comply with. The Opposite Party No.1 was therefore, constrained to withhold the supply of the Complainants premises till such time as the required proof of the change of residential address was submitted by the Complainant No.1 as per the laid down guidelines. It is contended that instead of complying with the requirements as directed by the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant No.1 complained to the police authorities who deputed a constable alongwith the Complainant No1. to the shop of Opposite Party No.1 and asked the Opposite Party to come to the police station for enquiry. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.3 alongwith P.A. of the M.L.A. who was present at the time of incident went to the police officer. The police officer requested to Opposite Party No.3 to issue the cylinder to the Complainant as a special case. On his request accordingly the gas cylinder was given to the Complainant. As the police officer requested to the Opposite Party No.1 by informing to the Complainant that before the next time for ordering the refill cylinder the change of address proof must be submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 as per rules. It is contended that the allegations of pecuniary loss are totally false and misleading. It is submitted that no hardship has been caused to the Complainants as they have five gas cylinders in their premises. It is submitted that the Complainants have filed after thought false case against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6) The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence. The Opposite Parties have also filed affidavit of evidence of Opposite Party No.3. The Complainants and Opposite Parties have filed their written arguments. We heard Smt. Rashmi Manne, Ld.Advocate for the Complainants and Smt. Kalyani Shinde, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties and perused the documents placed on record by both sides.
7) While considering the claim made by the Complainants in this complaint it is necessary to be taken into consideration that the fact that at the relevant time of the alleged incident the Complainants were not residing at the address of Shiva Sadan Building and the Complainants had shifted their residence to another building called Sagardeep Building No.4 in the premises situated at Teen Batti, Malabar Hill on First Floor, R/No.5, Mumbai, and the Complainants did not give in writing to the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the change of address till 14/08/2008. The action of not supplying the gas cylinder because of not informing the change address to the Opposite Party till 27/08/08 cannot be therefore, considered as deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It appears that the Complainant No.1 had informed her changed address to Opposite Parties for the first time on 28/08/08 as per the documents placed on record at page No.17 of the complaint. As per the guidelines issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. the proof of residence of the person in whose name the connection is being released is the condition and requirement of providing the gas connection. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 insisted for the proof of change of address to the Complainant No.1 as the building of Shiva Sadan was demolished when the delivery person of the Opposite Party No.1 had visited Shiva Sadan Building for delivery of gas cylinder cannot be held as deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is also pertinent to note that on 15/12/08 the Complainant herself gave in writing that she understood the rules of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. explained by Adv. Kalyani Shinde and agreed to submit application alongwith address proof to the Opposite Parties. The said document is also placed on record by the Opposite Parties on 24/07/2012 alongwith the list of documents therefore, the Complainants were aware that when the address is changed they have to submit the application alongwith the proof of resident to the Gas Service Centre is brought on record by the Opposite Parties. We therefore, hold that the case made out by the Complainants of deficiency of service hardship and harassment cannot be taken into consideration for grant of compensation as claimed in the complaint.
8) The Opposite Parties have also brought on record that in the family of the Complainant they are having five gas cylinders and three domestic pressure regulators in the names of R.B. Shirke, K.R. Shirke, thus, the case made out by the Complainants that because of non providing the gas cylinder as per the order booked by the Complainants on 14/08/08 the Complainants were required to spent Rs.1,700/- per day for 7 days towards the food expenditure at outside as well as they were required to incur expenditure as shown in the schedule of the complaint towards mobile charges postage and xerox and other expenses, such as taxi expenditure, etc. to the tune of Rs.17,530/- also cannot be granted to the Complainants as the Complainants themselves were careless and did not take due care and precaution to inform the new address alongwith residential proof of the said address to the Opposite Party No.1. we hold that the Complainants themselves are at fault for their own negligence and the complaint filed against the Opposite Parties can be considered filed with malafied intention to grab money from the Opposite Parties. We thus, hold that the submissions made by Smt. Rashmi Manne, Ld.Advocate for the Complainants and relying upon the authority in First Appeal No.610/2008 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Pravin Tulsiram Goyal V/s. Haridas Baburao Jogdandakar, dtd.04/03/09 cannot be accepted for the grant of claim in favour of the Complainants. On the other hand we hold that the complaint which is filed by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties is vexatious and false complaint, the Complainants are therefore, liable to pay cost to the Opposite Parties as provided u/s.26 of the Act. In the result we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.195/2008 is dismissed.
ii. The Complainants are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) each to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 as provided u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
iii. The Complainants are directed to comply the aforesaid order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
iv. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
