The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he is a bonafide customer under the oP no.1, a licensee under H.P.C.L. and his consumer no. is 616848 (SV No. and Date 1011613-27.02.2008). The further case of the complainant is that since long the Op no.1 and his delivery agent , Op no.5 herein, intentionally interrupted the supply of LPG to him. The complainant repeatedly informed and registered his grievances before the concerned authority of Op no.1 and on several occasion lodged written complaint to the particular authority for redressal of his grievances. The complainant and his family members were devoid of LPG service for a long period i.e. almost 2-3 months every after deposition of empty cylinder. The complainant also lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly , but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.
The Opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.1 is that as many as 40 number of such Cooperative societies and other 8 number of individual distributing centre have got themselves engaged with the opposite party no.1 working as such and out of about total of 21,600 number of L.P.gas consumers attached to Op no.1, at present there are about 10,500 L.P.Gas consumers who are being served by the said 40 number of Cooperative societies + 8 individual distributing centres = 48 number of total distributing centre. It is to be specifically stated that from so many consumers not a single complaint has come out aiming at this opposite party no.1, save and except the present one which is in reference herein. Hence, there suspicion arises the obvious question as to its believability.
The Opposite no. 2, 3 and 4 contested the case jointly by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op no.2 to 4 is that as at present the matter is pending before this ld.Forum, so no action has been taken about the complaint from HPCL side. However, as per the procedure prevailing on the part of these Ops, they will investigate the matter and will take action against the concerned distributor as per the provisions of Marketing Discipline Guidelines and Distributorship Agreement, if the allegation made by petitioner found to be true. The Op no.2 to 4 prays for dismissal of the case against them.
The Op no. 5 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the op no.5 is that , the Op no.5 is a commission agent under D.F.C.C. Store Ltd. i.e. Op no.1, and his duty is to deliver the filled Gas cylinder in lieu of empty cylinder to the consumer as per the direction of the D.F.C.C. Store Ltd. The Opno.5 is not an empowered authority to take charges from the consumer for booking. The authority of the D.F.C.C. directed to this OP to deliver the cylinder as per their list. The Op no.5 prays for dismissal of the case against him.
The complainant filed photo copy of Domestic Gas consumer Card no. 1616848, photo copy of letter of complaint dated 5.6.2012, photo copy of postal receipt (4 nos.) dated 7.3.14 and 31.3.14, photo copy of letter of complaint dated 18.10.12, photo copy of A/d card of letter dated 18.10.12, photo copy of letter of complaint dated 7.3.14 and some other documents. The complainant also filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of argument. All Opposite parties filed Written version , Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of argument.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by both the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
The complainant has filed affidavit in chief . Op-1 has also filed affidavit in chief. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite party intentionally did not supply L.P.G cylinder to the complainant and Op-1 refused to register the Manual Booking process. Complainant in para 3 has stated some days of oral complaints . The moot question raised by the complainant is non supply of Gas cylinder by Op no.1 . It is the duty of the complainant to prove that inspite of booking he did not get gas supply from the Op no.1. To that effect the complaint approached before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly for settlement of dispute wherein it has been reflected that there was dispute of non supply of gas to the complainant for which complainant came to the Business Affairs . The order sheet of that Dept. is a proof of the complainant’s allegation. Moreover, the Refill receipt book of the complainant goes to show that after 30.12.2013 there was no entry of Gas cylinder. The order dated 26.9.2013 by its resolution last line shows both of the parties agreed with the discussion and order dated 27.9.2013 reflects that complaint was settled “now the case may be treated as
redressed”. The Refill receipt book shows that complainant has got gas since 26.9.2012 to 29.11.2013 without interruption but after that there is no entry regarding Gas supply. The Op did not file any paper to establish that he has complied the order of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Hooghly passed on 27.9.2013. After 27.9.2013 only on 29.11.2013 gas has been supplied as per page 9 of the Gas Refill book. The OP did not file any document or register of cylinder supply to the complainant. It is very matter of surprise that the oP did not produce their register before this Forum to scrutiny the allegation of non supply. Naturally, suspicion arises what prevented the Op no.1 did not supply any paper or any register before this forum and their register of daily supply . Their stock register and supply register to go through the allegation of the complainant regarding non supply of L.P.G. cylinder which is against the principles of law of Essential Commodities Act and other law of the land by which the complainant is entitled to get the supply of Gas for which Govt. also is taking different steps to ensure gas supply by their authority i.e. through respective authorities. So, the material on record goes in favour of the complainant and establishes that the Op no.1 did not supply regularly gas to the complainant and as such the oP is liable for deficiency in service as per definition of “Deficiency and Service” in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed. Hence it is -
Ordered
That the CC no.85 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The OP no.1 is hereby directed to supply uninterruptedly L.P.G. cylinder to the complainant as per prevailing norms with price and receipt. The Op no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant
towards compensation for his mental agony, harassment and pain. The oP no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.,10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The Op no.1 is directed to comply this order by issuing A/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and if the order is not complied by the Op no.1 within 30 days, Rs.200/- per day shall be imposed upon the OP no.1 and that amount will be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund till recovery of full payment.
Other Opposite parties are exempted from any liability.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
