Maheshwari Gas Agency V/S Sri.A.Vishwas - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Kolar

CC/2/2015

Sri.A.Vishwas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maheshwari Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20.01.2015

Date of Order : 08.05.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated: 08^th DAY OF MAY 2015

PRESENT

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI ……. PRESIDENT

Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA …….. MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 02 / 2015

Sri. A. Vishwas,

#116/1, Kuppahalli Village,

Nandi Post, Landmark: Near

Milk Dairy, Chickballapur(Tq. & Dist.)

Chickballapur-562103.

(Rep. by In-person) ...... COMPLAINANT.

- V/s -

Maheshwari Gas Agency,

B.B.Road, Chickballapur(Tq & Dist)

Landmark: Near K.S.R.T.C Bus Stand,

Chickballapur-562 101.

(Rep. by Sri. M. Anil Kumar Scindia

& R. Bhaskar, Advocates) …… OPPOSITE PARTY.

ORDER

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

The complainant who is in-person, has submitted the complaint (taken read as Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) seeking reliefs,

To direct the Opponent to process the request for second cylinder (LPG) and consequently for issuance of the same
To direct the Opponent to link his account number for the reasons of subsidy and
To direct the opponent to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.3,000/-.

02. Pending the present complaint, while it reached the conclusion stage on 07.05.2015, the complainant has submitted a Memo stating that of the said three reliefs sought, the 2^nd relief has already been given by the Opponent by making necessary link on 24.01.2015 which has a consequence of recording benefit of subsidy. Hence this prayer needs no consideration any further.

03. The facts in brief,

On 20.01.2015 the complainant has come up with the complaint on hand by contending that, the Opponent Maheshwari Gas Agency at Chikkabalapur was requested for processing registration for supply of second cylinder. And that, approach was being made for the past six months which could fetch no response. Further it is contended that, he raised on-line request for double cylinder, vide request No.1186176 on 14.12.2014 (with the Bharat Petroleum Customer Care) bearing his consumer ID No.59846809. And that even on contacting of the Opponent and being informed of this on-line request, the opponent remained very rude to him and was told to contact the Bharat Gas Company as request for second cylinder was not to be processed.

(a) The complainant has also sought compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the opponent on the ground that, he had spent his time and money on petrol by coming over to Kolar for registering of this complaint.

(b) Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted Xerox copies of

Pass book issued by the opponent
On-line requisition dated: 14.12.2014 placed with the Bharath Gas for issuance of second cylinder,
Acknowledgement dated: 13.12.2014 and
Check status DBTL (CTC) as issued by the Bharat Gas Agency.

04. The opponent has put in appearance through the said learned counsel in response to the notice received. In the written version submitted it is contended that, the complaint is not tenable either on facts or in law. And that the averments made in the complaint that, the complainant had made an approach on said date: 14.12.2014 with regard to the said ID No.59846809 was false, frivolous and hence denied. Further it is also contended that, there could be no question of rude behavior directing the complainant to approach the Bharat Gas Company to process the claim for second cylinder, as contended. Thus dismissal of the complaint is sought.

05. The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence on 28.03.2015. Further with Memo dated: 10.04.2015 he has submitted DVD and print-out of e-mail as sent by Bharat Petroleum Customer Care (BPCL). At this juncture it is worth to note that, on 10.04.2014 there was display of this DVD through the laptop of the complainant. And this display was in the open Forum and even another such DVD was furnished by the learned counsel for the opponent on 08.04.2015 itself.

06. On 22.04.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the Opponent has submitted affidavit evidence and with Memo, has submitted two documents.

07. On 07.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the opponent has submitted the written arguments and on this day itself heard the oral arguments as submitted by the complainant in-person and the learned Sri.R.Bhaskar the counsel appearing for the Opponent.

08. Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opponent in processing claim of the complainant for the second cylinder?

(B) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

09. Finding of this District Forum on the said points are:-

POINT (A):- In the Affirmative

POINT (B):- The complainant is entitled to issuance of second cylinder subject to prescribed procedure but without loss of time

POINT (C):- As per the final order

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

10. To avoid repetition in reasoning and as these points do warrant common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

(a) In the normal course an approach being made by the customer who is already having facility of one cooking gas cylinder (LPG), for the second one, the Opponent ought to have furnished prescribed application form, so that, the complainant ought to have complied with. Whereas, the opponent has systematically denied oral approach being made by the complainant for the past six months prior to the date of the said complaint being on 20.01.2015. Such an approach being made on one of the said days, this complainant has furnished the DVD the recorded scene in it is to prevail to the very knowledge of the Opponent. For, the very proprietor is seen in the scene and the consequence was that the complainant returned home empty handed. So, the denial on the part of the opponent in the written version that, the complainant did not make such frequent oral approach is only a denial for denial sake. Being fed up, the complainant was constrained to make on-line request with the BPCL on 14.12.2014 which stood responded only on 08.04.2015, thus that too, committing inordinate delay. The entire concerned text of the reply reproduced reads thus:-

“Dear Mr.Vishwas A,

Subject: Your Complaint No. 415196 dated: 23.01.2015

Greetings from BPCL Customer Care.

We are pleased to inform you that your above complaint has been resolved as follows:

Type of Complaint: Others

Description: Previous complaint interaction Reference No.340588 waiting list no to take necessary action please find below waiting list no.1186176

Resolution: Please approach the Distributor for second cylinder request with the original Subscription voucher and photo ID. The cost would be Rs.1450 deposit, Rs.50 admin charge and refill cost.

In case your complaint has not been resolved to your satisfaction or you need some more information / clarifications on the subject, you may please call us on our toll free number with Complaint Number mentioned above.

We value your continued association with Bharat Petroleum and assure you of our best attention & services at all times.

For future interaction you can visit our Website Thank you for contacting BPCL Customer Care.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Thus there could be no denial that this complainant is entitled to receive the second cooking gas cylinder (LPG) to be issued by the opponent, of course, by processing the request in prescribed manner.

12. The contention of the opponent that there could be no issuance of second cylinder to any of the customers for the period from 01.05.2014 to December-2014 looses any significance, for, the very BPCL has committed itself to this complainant by declaring that on following certain procedure he is entitled to receive the second cylinder.

(a) Deferring the claim for want of supply is a different aspect from remaining indifferent and inactive. What has happened in this case is that the opponent was constantly indifferent and inactive and hence it is totally deficiency in service with regard to the claim of the complainant for second cylinder. At any rate the District Forum reaffirms that the opponent has committed omission in the duty by not furnishing prescribed application form to meet the claim of the customer to have second cylinder. And as the complainant has made frequent approach that met with no response, ultimately he was constrained to lodge the complaint before this District Forum. It would make clear that, the opponent is liable to pay the compensation for the mental agony and loss of time as well as expense he incurred in frequenting to the opponent and lastly to this forum to lodge the complaint on hand. We quantify the compensation to be paid by the opponent to the complainant in sum of Rs.2,000/- as against the claim preferred by him in sum of Rs.3,000/-.

POINT (C):

13. We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01. For the foregoing reasons the complaint stands Allowed with costs of Rs.500/-, as below.

02. The OP stands directed to issue the second cooking gas cylinder (LPG) to this complainant on compliance of certain prescribed procedure without loss of time, which shall certainly be in the light of the e-mail dated: 08.04.2015 sent by the BPCL to this complainant.

03. We direct the opponent to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- within a period of one month from the date of the communication of this order failing which, the opponent is further liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 20.01.2015 being the date of complaint till realization.