Andhra Pradesh
Nellore
CC/43/2014
Mittapalli Jaya chandrareddy - Complainant(s)
Versus
Manager Sarwar Police Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)
Inperson
31 Jul 2015
ORDER
Date of Filing :09-06-2014
Date of Disposal:31-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE
Friday, this the 31st day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member
Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.
C.C.No.43/2014
Mittapalli Jaya Chandra Reddy,
Age 37 year, Hindu, Occupation-Nil,
S/o.M.Narasimha Reddy,H.No.6-145,
Akkarampalli,Tirupati-517507. ..… Complainant
Vs.
Manager, Sarwar Police Gas Agency, 9th Battalion, APSP, Valliveedu, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore-524132. ..…Opposite party
|
.
This complaint coming on 24-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Complainant appeared inperson and Smt.G.V.L. Nagamani, advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri M. SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
This Consumer Case is filed by the complainant-in-person against the opposite party to direct opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards the physical strain, mental agony and also financial loss suffered by the complainant and also refund the deposit amount after a long period, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the complainant and also issue a fresh termination voucher by correcting the name as M. Jayachandra Reddy and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.
I.Factual matrix leading to filing of this Consumer Case is as stated as hereunder:
1(a) | It is the case of the complainant that he had submitted a letter by registered post to the Unit Officer for permission of Gas transfer through register post No.GRN 436500772, and also send e-mail to the opposite party on 15-10-2012 but the said letter was managed by the opposite party and returned to him and also there is no reply for his e-mail. |
(b) | It is also further submitted by the complainant in para 3 of his complaint that on 19-11-2012 he had personally met the opposite party and submitted the same letter dated 15-10-2012 which was returned to him at Battalion Welfare Office, 9th Bn, APSP, Valliveedu, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore, in the presence of Head Constable 118, Sri Raju (Battalion Welfare Office Clerk) and also requested to take the Gas equipments and issue Termination Voucher and also refund the deposit amount as the complainant and his family members are suffering financially by purchasing the Gas in open market. The opposite party promised the complainant that, “Within a couple of days we will inform you, then come and handover your gas equipments”, but the opposite party failed to permit the complainant for Gas Transfer and also failed to issue the Termination Voucher and also failed to refund the above said deposit amount as his family members are suffering financially by purchasing the gas in open market.
|
(c) | It is also further stated by the complainant that in paras 4 and 5 of his complaint that he had lodged online complaint to the Sarwar Police Gas Agency and also complained to the Regional Manager, LPG Business Unit, Bharath Pertroleum Corporation, Chennai through FAX on the same day. On the next day the Sales Officer called on Mobile and promised the complainant that, “I contacted the HC 395 Madhav Reddy, who is the Gas Office Clerk, He will take all your equipments, please contact him and take your deposit amount and also the termination Voucher”. Accordingly, the complainant had contacted the HC 395 but the HC 395 said, “without the permission of Unit Officer, we cannot take your gas equipments and we cannot give you Termination voucher and also your deposit amount”. |
The complainant had personally met the opposite party on 24th January, 2013 and requested to take gas equipments and issue Termination Voucher and also refund the deposit amount as the complainant and his family members are suffering financially by purchasing the gas in open market. But the opposite party answered carelessly that, “wait some more time, we will see it later”. | |
(d) | It is also further submitted by the complainant in paras 6 and 7 of his complaint that he had issued a notice dated 25-04-2013 to opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for showing negligence and deficiency of service. Accordingly on 27-05-2013, the opposite party gave reply notice with false and untenable allegations. He had met personally opposite party in the month of November, 2013 once again and requested for gas transfer and also requested to refund the deposit amount, then the opposite party said,” If you give fresh request addressed to the unit officer, then by the permission of the unit officer we will give you transfer”. Accordingly complainant had submitted by hand to the opposite party a fresh letter addressed to the unit officer and basing on this on 26-11-2013, the gas equipments were taken by the opposite party and issued the Termination Voucher. But the opposite party had issued the Termination Voucher by mentioning the name M. Jaya Chandra as the complainant’s name was M. Jaya Chandra Reddy in the Subscription Voucher. The complainant had asked the opposite party that, “Sir, why you given the voucher without proper name, how can I produce the address proof with another name at other distributor”, then the opposite party answered carelessly that,” We cannot do anything and there is no matter between us and I am not responsible for it”. Later the complainant approached the gas distributors at Tirupati but none of the Distributor accepted complainant’s Termination Voucher without proper name as in the address proof. |
(e) | It is further submitted by the complainant that in paras 8 and 9 of his complaint that the opposite party had willfully caused inconvenience and shown the causes unnecessarily. The opposite party is the whole and sole responsible for the transfer of customer and wantonly neglected, thereby the complainant had suffered a lot by not taking the gas equipments and also not issued the termination voucher by the opposite party. The opposite party had not refunded the deposit amount within the time. Because of the acts of the opposite party, the complainant and his family members had suffered a lot with mental agony and put him financial loss which is irreparable. |
| The opposite party had willfully caused damage to the complainant, thereby, the complainant had suffered eventhough he had approached opposite party so many times personally and also through the letters. The opposite pry had failed to do his duty by issuing the termination voucher and also not refunded the deposit amount. |
(f) | There are causes of action to file the complainant which are narrated in para 9 of the complaint by the complainant. The Hon’ble Forum had jurisdiction to try the complaint and it is within the limits of said Forum. Hence, the compliant. |
II. DEFENCE: | |
| The complainant was resisted by opposite party through the Manger, who has submitted in the form of letter dated 18-08-2014 to the Forum, narrating the facts of the case in detail. According to the said manager of opposite party, the facts of the case, with regard to the dispute are mentioned and they are as follows: |
1. | Sarwar Police Gas Agency is established in the year 1997 in 9th Bn. APSP., Vallivedu, Venkatagiri to the welfare of the Police families and surrounding villagers to supply Bharat Gas for domestic / commercial purpose. |
2. | Sri M. Jaya Chandra Reddy, while working in this Unit as Constable is the Consumer of our Gas agency since 13-05-2000 with Consumer No.750 and supplying the Gas as and when he required. |
3. | While issuing the Subscription voucher to Sri M. Jaya Chandra Reddy, all the records pertaining to the Gas agency is maintained manually. During the year 2008, the BPCL authorities were instructed to computerize all the available data of the Consumers of the Agency. Accordingly the data was computerized basing on the records available in the Gas Office. |
4. | The complainant was requested for transfer of his Gas connection to Tirupathi through E-Mail on 15-10-2012. But as per the guidelines issued by the BPCL authorities, he has to come up with an representation personally and handover the Subscription Voucher, Gas Regulator, Cylinders and pas book to the Agency. The same matter was informed to Sri M. Jaya Chandra Reddy through this office letter dated 12-11-2012 and 25-04-2013 to deposit the above items and get transfer. But the complainant had failed to do so. A copy of letters were enclosed for kind perusal. Eventhugh, he received the information from the gas agency, he kept silence for a long time and personally appeared before the Gas Manager on 07-11-2013 with a request to issue transfer voucher to his Gas connection by handing over the BPCL properties. Accordingy, he was issued Transfer voucher to Tirupathi on 26-11-2013 and refunded his deposit amount under proper acknowledgement. While issuing the Transfer Voucher, he never objected about the change of his name as M. Jaya Chandra instead of M. Jaya Chandra Reddy. Since the records in the agency computerized, all the Gas bills pertaining to C.No.750 was issued as M.Jaya Chandra. But he never objected about change of his name and after transferring the connection to Tirupathi, he had given a complaint to BPCL authorities requesting to change his name as M. Jaya Chandra Reddy instead of M. Jaya Chandra. As per the instructions of BPCL authorities, we informed to Sri M. Jaya Chandra Reddy by this office to return the Transfer voucher and correct up his name. But he never responded and blaming the agency intentionally in this way due to his personal disputes with the-then Unit Officer as stated in his complaint to the BPCL authorities dated 23-11-2012. The Cash memo copies issued to C.No.750 are for ready reference. |
III. | The complainant has filed his chief-affidavit on 18-08-2014 reiterating once again the facts of the case and also documents are marked on his behalf as Exs.A1 to A9; whereas the opposite party has also filed chief-affidavit, reiterating once again the facts of the case and also documents are marked as Exs.B1 to B3. The memorandum of written arguments are submitted on behalf of opposite party on 07-07-2015. The written arguments of complainant of the case had been filed before the Forum on 22-04-2015.
|
IV | Basing on the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration and determination of the case and they are as follows as:- |
| (i) Is there any deficiency in service against the opposite party towards the complainant? |
| (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for, if it is so, to what extent? |
| (iii) To what relief? |
V) POINTS 1 AND 2: These two points are inter-dependant with each other, so we have taken up together for determination of the case. One who seeks equity from the Forum / Court, must come with clean hands.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers equity jurisdiction on the Consumer Fora i.e., to decide cases on the basis of Justice, equity and good conscience. To render ‘just and equitable’ justice to the Consumer is their function. It requires the Consumer For a to follow mainly principles of Natural Justice.
Oral arguments f the complainant and he is also an advocate:-
Sri M. Jaya Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant is the consumer bearing No,.0750 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,900/-. He has further argued that the complainant had filed complaint against the opposite party claiming the compensation amount towards the physical strain, mental agony and also financial loss sustained by him. In this connection, the said learned counsel for the complainant has also further contended that the complaint, an affidavit and the documents filed by him, are may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments to save time and to avoid description of the facts of the case are once again repetition of them. He has further urged that stressed much that the said documents of the contents are self-explanatory, especially Exs.A1 and Exs.B3 is the original documents description of voucher is dated 13-05-2014 M. Jayachandra Reddy, it bears the signature of distributor with date 13-05-2014, whereas Exs.A9 is bearing the signatures of the complainant and distributor dated 26-11-2013. There is a variation in the voucher as far as the name of the complainant. The opposite party is the responsible for changing the names in full or short as the case may be, it is all happened due to mistake committed by their staff and said vouchers are in the custody of opposite party’s control and disposal, for that the complainant should not be penalized for that and forced him to wander post to pillar and pillar to post, just for change of name of complainant in the records. The computer staff of opposite party had committed mistake while computerization of record.
The learned counsel for the complainant has also further contended that the opposite party has deliberately done all the aspects with prejudice mind to cause mental worry to the complainant, but nothing else. It is the duty of opposite party to computerize the name which appeared in the name original voucher as it is but not short form. It is incorrect. They (opposite party) had done it for the reasons best to know to them, with ulterior motive behind it.Finally, he has prayed the Hon’ble Forum may deem the complaint fit and proper in the interests of justice, to pass an order in favour of complainant as prayed for, with costs.
Oral arguments of the said learned counsel for the opposite party:
Sri G.V.L. Nagamani, the said learned counsel for the opposite party has also vehemently argued that the complainant is worked as constable of opposite party gas agency since 13-05-2010. During the year 2008, the BPCL authorities, the complainant has approached opposite party with an representation personally and handover the subscription voucher to opposite party. He was informed to the complainant through opposite party’s letter dated 12-11-2012 i.e., Exs.B1 and 25-04-2013 to get transfer of gas, but for the reasons best known to him, was failed to do so. He has also further argued that the complainant had kept quite for a longtime and personally before opposite party’s manager on 07-11-2013 with a request to issue transfer voucher and accordingly. At the time of issuing transfer voucher, the complainant had never objected about the change of his name as Jayachandra and lateron correct as his name is Jayachandra Reddy. It is all due to the disputes with the then unit officer.
The said learned counsel for opposite party has further also contended that the reply, an affidavit and written arguments are may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. He has also stressed much that on behalf of opposite party that if the complainant is submitted all the necessary details, the opposite party is ready to corrected his name but he did not do so. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said learned counsel for opposite party has prayed that the complainant is meritless and hence it may be dismissed with costs.
Forum’s Findings and Observations
Heard, the said learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record very carefully. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. We have also taken into consideration of their written arguments. The case is remained unresolved between the parties for one reason or the other. One who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
Reasons for order:-
Now, the only notable and moot point is for our consideration before us and for determination is very simple. We can say that entire record of the complainant is till now it is in possession of the opposite party and the names of the customers will not change time to time and not depend upon the whims and fancies of authority concerned. Justice will be done according to the principles of Natural Justice. The correspondence of the letters between the parties will not provide solution to the problem concerned. The concerned authority is supposed to issue gas vouchers to the consumers according to the names are entered in the record originally. The names of persons will not change time and again. The computer will be taken information as it is, a person furnishes anything in words as the case may be. There is no question of any variance in the names of it. There is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence of opposite party towards the complainant. Realization of Justice is the ultimate function of law. We are convinced with the arguments of the complainant. To meet the ends of Justice, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as stated in point No.3. Service Provider is liable to compensate the Consumer as to the laws or injury suffered by him. Consumers are concerned with the efficient service for which they pay consideration.
VI. POINT No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation towards the physical strain, mental agony and also financial loss suffered by the complainant and also refund the deposit amount with regard to the gas connection and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for the complainant
P.W.1 - | 18-08-2014 | Sri Mittapalli Jaya Chandra Reddy, S/o.M. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate, Tirupati (Chief Affidavit filed) |
Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties
R.W.1 - | 11-03-2015 | Sri R. Prabakar Rao, S/o.R. Raghu Ramaiah, Working as Reserve Inspector, Nellore District. |
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - | - | Photocopy of Second Cylinder Issued receipt in favour of complainant by the opposite party.
|
Ex.A2 - | 15-10-2012 | One registered post receipt addressed to the opposite party.
|
Ex.A3 - | - | Photocopy of letter from complainant to the opposite party and mail information on 15-10-2012.
|
Ex.A4 - | 23-11-2012 | Letter from complainant to the LPG Business Unit, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Chennai-400 060 alongwith TX Image Set not to display, Transmission OK receipt.
|
Ex.A5 - | - | On 25-04-2013 photocopy of notice before filling a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from complainant to the opposite party alongwith one registered post receipt.
|
Ex.A6 - | 25-04-2013 | Letter from opposite party to the complainant.
|
Ex.A7 - | 17-01-2013 | Memo, C.No.1752/G1/2012-13, PIO/Asst.Commandant, Venkatagiri.
|
Ex.A8 - | 25-10-2013 | Memo, C.No.1427/G1/2013, Public Information Officer, Venkatagiri.
|
Ex.A9 - | 26-11-2013 | Termination Voucher-8002348670 in favour of complainant issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. |
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 - | 12-11-2012 | Photocopy copy of letter from opposite party to the complainant.
|
Ex.B2 - | 25-04-2013 | Photocopy of letter from opposite party to the complainant alongwith registered post receipt.
|
Ex.B3 - | - | Photocopy of Second Cylinder Issued receipt in favour of complainant by the opposite party.
|
Id/-
PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
Copies to:
1. | Sri Mittapalli Jaya Chandra Reddy, S/o.M.Narasimha Reddy, H.No.6-145, Akkarampalli,Tirupati-517507.
|
2. | Smt.G.V.L.Nagamanai, Advocate, Nellore. |
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.