DISTRICT CONSUMER D REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 24^th day of January 2019

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member         Date of filing:  16/08/2016

                                                CC/124/2016

Sherli,

W/o. Babu,

Kallarakkal Veedu,

Aradhana Nagar, Mannarkkad (PO),

678 582.                                                                          -  Complainant       

(By Advs.M.P.Ravi & M.J.Vince)

                                                            Vs

Jaihind Enterprises,

Indane Distributors,

Anakatty Road, Mannarkkad,

Indane Distributors,

Anakatty Road, Mannarkkad,

(Rep.by its Authorised Officer)

(By Adv.Feroze Arakkal)

PMK Towers, 2^nd Floor,

Near Civil Station, Vellimadukunnu,

(Rep.by its Authorised Officer)

(opp.parties 2 & 3 supplemental opp.parties)

(By Adv.P.Anil)

                                                          O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

The case of the complainant is that, he is a consumer of supplemental 2^nd opposite party with consumer number:48524; according to the complainant there is a Govt. order that in a financial year 12 gas cylinders should be distributed and if gas is booked, within 7 days it should be distributed as per the instructions of gas companies, but complainant submits that if booking for gas cylinder is done in 2^nd opposite party gas distributor, even after 40 days gas cylinder is not distributed to her.  According to the complainant, in financial year 2014-15, only 8 gas cylinders and in financial year 2015-16, only 9 gas cylinders were distributed to her.  Complainant also submits that since gas cylinder was not distributed even after 40 days a complaint was filed in District Supply Office, Palakkad, only then gas cylinder was supplied to her. The main plea of the complainant is that in a financial year complainant is entitled to get 12 gas cylinders, but gas cylinder distribution was not promptly done by the opposite parties and thereby default and deficiency on their part have occurred in their service to the complainant which is repeated by the opposite parties every year.  Since gas cylinders are not obtained promptly, for house hold use other steps have to be taken which caused to the complainant about Rs.50,000/- financial loss during last two years and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-.  Therefore complainant prays to this Forum for an order to recover from the opposite parties Rs.60,000/- by way of total compensation and to direct the opposite parties to promptly supply gas. 

The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to the opposite parties.  Jaihind Enterprises, Indane distributors were made supplemental 2^nd opposite party and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., PMK Towers, Calicut were impleaded as supplemental 3^rd opposite party as per order IA-474/16 dated. 07.12.2016.  In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, he agrees that complainant’s gas connection comes under this opposite party but denies all the statements mentioned by the complainant in his complaint except those admitted.  1^st opposite party contends that as and when filling stations of Indian Oil Corporation distribute gas cylinders to this opposite party, as per the priority of booking gas is correctly distributed; as per the order of booking of gas cylinder, subject to availability of gas from the company, gas cylinder is distributed to the complainant promptly and there is no deficiency in providing service to the complainant on the part of these opposite parties 1 and 2.  According to this opposite party complainant has not clearly stated how Rs.50,000/- financial loss has occurred to the complainant.  Hence this opposite party contends that no financial loss has occurred to the complainant and the complainant has not taken any legal steps against this opposite party so far and hence complainant’s claim towards cost of this proceeding is not correct.  Thus, according to the 1^st opposite party the amount of compensation claimed is baseless and very high which may not be allowed by this Forum and hence complaint should be dismissed. 

In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party it is contended that except those admitted the rest of the statements made in the complaint by the complainant are denied by this opposite party, but this opposite party admits that the gas connection of the complainant is under them, but other aversions of the complainant are not correct.  This opposite party contends that from the filling stations of the 3^rd opposite party in the order in which gas cylinder is allotted to this opposite party, in the order of booking gas distribution is done by this opposite party correctly.  According to the order of booking and availability of gas from the company gas cylinders are distributed to the complainant correctly by this opposite party who also contend that there is no law that in a financial year each consumer should be distributed 12 gas cylinders and this opposite party has no liability to distribute 12 gas cylinders to each consumer.  Since no deficiency has occurred on the part of this opposite party in rendering lawful service to the complainant, she is not entitled for any reliefs claimed by her.  Hence this opposite party prays to this Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost.

As per the version filed by the 3^rd opposite party this complaint is not maintainable and there is no act of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed from the part of the 3^rd opposite party.  According to this opposite party there is no order stating that each consumer has to be provided with 12 gas cylinders every year.  The 3^rd opposite party also contends that no direction is issued by the gas companies that the gas cylinders should be delivered within a period of 7 days from the date of booking; they also denied the averments that the complainant did not receive the gas cylinders from the opposite parties even after 40 days of booking of the gas cylinders because delivery of gas cylinders to the consumers is done by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and not by this opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party cannot be held liable for acts committed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties because delivery of the gas cylinders to the consumers is the sole responsibility of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  According to this opposite party it is a baseless statement that the complainant had only received 8 gas cylinders in 2014-15 and 9 gas cylinders in 2015-16, this opposite party delivers the gas cylinders in time to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and delivery of those gas cylinders to the retail consumers is done by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and this opposite party is not liable for any deficiency in service arising from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  This opposite party also contends that they did not know of the complainant not having receiving received the gas cylinders for a period of 40 days, that the complainant approached the District Supply Officer, Palakkad for the supply of the same and only after that complainant received the gas cylinders.  Further, according to the dealership agreement it is the duty of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that gas cylinders should be promptly delivered to the complainant.  Also the averment that complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.60,000/- is baseless and this opposite party is not liable to provide any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice are committed by this opposite party.  Therefore this opposite party requests this Forum to uphold their contentions and dismiss this complaint with cost to this opposite party.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and additional affidavit.  Complainant also filed IA/474/16 seeking permission to implead the 2^nd and 3^rd supplemental opposite parties and for consequentional amendment and in the interest of justice IA is allowed.  Opposite parties also filed affidavits.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the complainant except Ext.A5 which was marked subject to proof.  1^st opposite party was cross examined as DW1 and from the side of opposite parties Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. 

The following Issues are considered in this case:-

     1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

            parties?

     2.    If so, the reliefs and cost available to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

          The case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of domestic gas connection with the opposite parties with her consumer number being 48524.  The main grievance of the complainant is that she is not getting the gas refills promptly and in time and she is also not getting the required number of cylinders every year.  During the period 2014-15, she got only 8 cylinders which is clear from her deposition when she was cross examined as PW1 before this Forum and Ext.B1 produced by the opposite parties 1 and 2 which also clearly shows that 8 gas cylinders were delivered to the complainant during 2014-15.  During 2015-16 she got only 9 cylinders which is also clear from complainant’s deposition before this Forum during her cross examination as PW1. This is in spite of Ext.A1 which is information provided under RTI Act 2005, dated 30/07/2014 in reply to complainant’s reference letter dated 04/06/2016 and DSO’s letter No.CS1-27/4047/2016(2) dated 4^th July 2016, by CPIO and Territory Manager, LPG(Kochi) “as per Government of India notification dated 7/3/2014, effective 1/4/2014 each domestic consumer is entitled for 12 numbers 14.2 kg. LPG cylinders in a financial year at subsidized rates”.  Further, as per Ext.A4 which is copy of a letter issued by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, dated 4^th September 2014 addressed to the Director (Marketing), IOC/BPCL/ HPCL, Mumbai, conveying that “Oil Marketing Companies can supply a maximum of 12 subsidized LPG cylinders to all domestic LPG consumers per annum w.e.f. 1/4/2014, but without any restriction on the number of subsidized cylinders that one can take in a month”. 

          Further as per Ext.A3 series it is clear that after 36 days, 40 days,              43 days, 20 days and 33 days cylinder refills booked on 10/6/2016, 31/8/2016, 14/12/2015, 22/8/2015 and 16/12/2015 respectively are delivered to the complainant which is seen as against what is stated in Ext.A1 and A2 which show that “our efforts are to supply refills within two working days of booking” (Ext.A2); “our efforts are to supply refills to the customers within seven working days”(Ext.A1).  From Ext.A3 series it is quite clear that between 20 to 43 days are taken by the opposite parties to deliver the booked cylinder refills to the complainant and as per Ext.B1 also during 2014-2015, and 2015-16, 20 to 61 days are taken by the opposite parties to deliver to the complainant the booked cylinders.  This is also clear from the relevant extracts of depositions made by the complainant as PW1 and by the 1^st opposite party as DW1 which are produced below to prove the case of the complainant for inordinate delay taken by the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver the booked cylinders to the complainant.  ”Rm³ sImSp¯ A^nUhnän 2014þ15 hÀj¯n 8 Kymkv knen­À In«n F¶v ]dªn«pÅXv icnbmWv.  2015þ16 hÀj¯n 9 Kymkv knen­À In«n F¶p ]dbp¶Xpw icnbmWv.  Kymkn\v ]pdsa hndInsâ ASp¸pw, Idânsâ ASp¸pw D]tbmKn¡p¶p­v.  2014þ15 ImeL«¯n Rm³ 9 knen­À am{Xsa _p¡p sNbvXpÅq.  8 F®w ssI¸än.  2015þ16 ImeL«¯n Rm³ 10 knen­À _p¡p sNbvXp F¶p ]dªm AdnbnÃ.  _p¡v t\m¡Ww.  B kab¯pw Hsc®w Iym³k sNbvtXm F¶v AdnbnÃ.  9 F®w ssI¸än.  12 F®w In«nbnà F¶v ]dªv ]cmXn sImSp¯Xnsâ ASnØm\w Hcp _p¡nMv DÅt¸mÄ ASp¯ _p¡nMv kzoIcn¡nÃ.  AXpsIm­v 12 F®w _p¡v sN¿m³ km[n¡nÃ.  F\n¡v Hcp knen­À In«nbm am{Xsa ASp¯ knen­À _p¡v sN¿m³ ]äpIbpÅq.  30 Znhkw Ignbpt¼mÄ _p¡v sN¿m³ ]änÃ.  ImcWw, 45 Znhkw FSp¡pw _p¡v sNbvX Kymkv knen­À In«m³.  Kymkv F\n¡v In«m³ Xmakw h¶Xv sIm­v Kymkv _p¡v sN¿m³ km[n¡msX t]mbXv.” 

        ”t^mWneqsS _p¡v sN¿m\pÅ Xmakw Kymkv knen­À In«m\pÅ XmakamWv.  45 Znhkw ]nSn¡pw Kymkv knen­À sUenhdn In«m³. AXpsIm­v _p¡v sN¿m³ km[n¡msX h¶p”. 

        DW1 in his deposition before this Forum stated that ”2014þ15 ImeL«¯n F\n¡v A{X HmÀ½bnÃ. F¶ncp¶mepw 30þ40 Znhkw sUenhdn \S¯m³ FSp¯ncp¶p.  GItZiw 2 amkt¯mfw FSp¯ncp¶p F¶v ]dªm AXv icnbmWv.  Ext.B1 se BZys¯ F³{Sn 06.04.2014 emWv.  AXv _p¡nMv sUbnäv BWv.  AXv sUenhdn sNbvXXv 09.04.2014 \mWv.  CXn 09.04.2014\v tijw _p¡v sN¿mw.  CXp {]Imcw Hcp hÀj¯n 12 knen­À _p¡v sN¿m³ km[n¡nÔ. 

          Thus complainant pleads that inordinate delay has occurred on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver the booked cylinder refills to her which proves that grave service deficiency has occurred on the part of the opposite parties.  As a result much mental agony is seen to have been caused to her and she was also forced to make use of firewood and electricity which has caused much financial loss to her due to non availability of subsidy for firewood and electricity and also caused much physical strain to the complainant.  In the version filed by opposite parties 1 and 2, they contend that the complainant has not booked cylinders immediately after the delivery of the previous cylinder and she has cancelled the booking and not taken delivery of the delivered cylinders which is clear from Ext.B1.  According to these opposite parties 12 cylinders can be delivered only if they are available and if the booking is done within time by the complainant.  These opposite parties further argue that the shortage of cylinder supply from the 3^rd opposite party will affect the delivery and therefore it is not their service deficiency. These opposite parties also contend that AUS facility (Automated Unified System) is not used by the complainant immediately after the delivery of the previous cylinder.  Also there is no actual evidence to show that complainant has suffered loss financially.  Complainant has not produced any bill for the purchase of firewood and electricity bills for usage of current are also not produced by her to show expenditure incurred by her on firewood and electricity.  She has also not proved any financial loss incurred as a result of usage of electricity and firewood fuels. The 3^rd opposite party contends that this complaint is not maintainable.  All the averments and allegations in the complaint are denied except those expressly admitted.  The 3^rd opposite party produced distributorship agreement executed between the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party which is marked as Ext.B2.  This opposite party denies that there is an order stating that each consumer is to be provided with 12 subsidized gas cylinders each year.  This opposite party also argues that there is no direction issued by gas companies that the gas cylinders are to be delivered to the complainant within 7 days from the date of booking and also denies the averment by the complainant that even after 40 days of booking of the gas cylinder with the opposite parties the complainant did not receive the gas cylinders.  This opposite party contends that delivery of gas cylinders to the consumers is done by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and this opposite party has no role in the same and the 3^rd opposite party cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  It is submitted that the 3^rd opposite party delivers the required number of cylinders as intimated by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on receipt of the required amount from them.  The 3^rd opposite party also contends that they deliver the cylinders in time to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  Hence complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for by her.

          From the chief affidavits and documentary evidences submitted by both the complainant and the three opposite parties in this case, it is clear that complainant has not been able to book 12 cylinders with opposite parties 1 and 2 in financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16 due to inordinate delay of nearly 2 months occurred on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in delivering the cylinder refills booked during these years to the complainant consumer which is also evident from complainant’s oral submissions and details of gas booking and gas delivery submitted.  We observe that complainant got only 8 cylinders during 2014-15 and only 9 cylinders during 2015-16, although she was entitled to get 12 cylinders at subsidized rates from 1/4/2014 as per Govt. of India notification dated 7/3/2014.  Hence we view that complainant is a loser because she did not get 12 nos. of cylinder refills at subsidized rates fully due to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties service deficiency of inordinately delayed delivery of booked cylinders and she had to incur huge financial loss due to much delayed delivery of booked cylinders by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties which has caused to the complainant huge financial loss, much mental agony and a lot of physical strain.  Hence we view that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have been found to have committed grave deficiency in their service by not promptly distributing the booked cylinders to the complainant.  Under these circumstances complaint is allowed. 

          We order the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for mental agony suffered by her and towards expenses having to be incurred by the complainant on firewood and electricity due to delayed delivery of gas cylinders by the opposite parties 1 and 2; we also direct the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the cost of this proceedings.  Since no documentary evidence is produced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to show occurrence of delay from the part of the 3^rd opposite party in delivery of cylinders from their filling stations to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, we order the 3^rd opposite party to be discharged from any liability in this case. 

          This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to realize 9% interest p.a on the total amount due to her from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of January 2019.

             Sd/-

                   Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                       Sd/-               

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                   Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          - Letter dated 30.07.16 giving information under RTI Act 2005 by Bharath

            Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kochi Territory Office and LPG Plant.

Ext.A2          - Letter dated 29.08.16 giving information as replies to query Nos. 2 to 4

  raised by K.C.Babu, Mannarkkad (Husband of the complainant in this

  case)

Ext.A3 series - Bills for procuring gas cylinders (5 Nos.) given to the complainant

                     by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A4          - Copy of a letter dated 4^th September, 2014 from the Ministry of

  Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, New Delhi to the Director

  (Marketing), IOC/BPCL/HPCL informing revision in copping scheme for

  domestic subsidized LPG cylinders.

Ext.A5          - Copies of complainant’s gas consumer book (subject to proof)

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 - Computer printout from 06.02.2014 to 04.10.2017 maintained by

  the 1^st opposite party showing  details of gas booking with the 1^st and

  2^nd opposite parties.

Ext.B2 - Copy of Distributorship agreement dated 13.01.2015 executed between

            the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   - Sherli

Witness examined on the side of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties

DW1   - Nandakumar

Cost

          Rs.3,000/-