The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant being an unmarried youth having separate family establishment and that has been recognized by the OP no.1 and the oP no.1 granted a single cylinder LPG domestic connection to the complainant under the Bharat Gas Distributorship. The complainant has been enjoying the connection for his domestic use as a bonafide consumer without any breach of agreement with the Bharat Gas Distributor . The fact is that the complainant used to book for filled LPG cylinder to the complainant with dishonest tricks so the gap between the delivery of LPG cylinder and land the booking is more than one month. It is alleged by the complainant that the oP no.1 for financially gain illegally marketing in open market by dishonest means. Thereafter, the complainant has come to know that online booking system facility for booking domestic LPG cylinder. On 20.2.2012 the complainant speaking to the office of oP no.2 complaining against Op no.1 for refusal to accept booking of cylinder. The complainant states that on 20.2.2012 the complainant registered his mobile no.and on successful registration the complainant booked the LPG cylinder and the LPG cylinder and received the home delivery of LPG filled cylinder on 14.3.2012 within 24 days from the date of booking . Second time on line booking was made by the petitioner on 14.3.12 but LPG filled cylinder has never been delivered to the residence of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the complainant made written representation to OP no.2 under a copy to OP no.1. But no
response received till date. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint in Dadpur Police station against the oP no.1. The complainant states that the father of the complainant further lodged another complaint to Dadpur P.S. and copy forwarded to the Superintendent of Police. But no steps taken on behalf of Police authority and OPno.2 and 4 did not appear before the Hon’ble Forum. The allegation of the complainant that the Deputy Manager, Territorial Manager along with Op no.1 during inspection found multiple connection in the kitchen by the written version of the oP no.1 and no reasonable explanation had been given by the complainant and thereafter the B.P.C.L. office submitted report and locked the connection. The story of Op no.1 that Op no.1 has no involvement and she only accompanied the higher officer is concocted malafide and harassive. The complainant alleged that there was no enquiry and only to defend herself she told that enquiry was made. Even the date of enquiry never been conveyed even after demand notice for delivery of filled LPG cylinder. But no action has yet been taken by Op no.1 or 2. The complainant states and alleges that he has been suffered financial loss of government subsidized product at the tune of Rs.8400/- against non elivery of more than 24 filled LPG cylinder. Now findng no other way the complainant has compelled to file this instant case against the oP no.1 praying for compensation in terms of money of Rs.8400/- payable to the complainant as subsidized amount against non delivery of 24 filled LPG cylinder . The complainant also prayed before the Forum with a direction of money of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac only) for physical and mental agony , all cost of the suit and such other relief or reliefs.
The Op no.1 contested the case by filing written version. In the written version the Op no.1 states and denies that the complainant has no locus standi to file their case and the instant complainant petition is not maintainable. The Op states that only on the petition of complaint he has issued the new gas connection. The Op no.1 denies the para 3 of the complaint petition. Regarding para 4 of the complaint petition the oPno.1 states that the booking of Gas made in the Head office and she is no way connected about the booking of gas para 5 of the complaint case is a matter of record and para 7,8,9 is a matter of record. Para 9 of the complaint the oP no.1 states and alleges that the Deputy Manager, the territorial Manager himself along with Op no.1 visited the house of the petitioner and found that there are multiple connection in the same kitchen and further alleges that no reasonable explanation had been given by the complainant at the time of spot inspection and thereafter the Higher Authority locked the said connection of the complainant and there was no involvements by the dealer i.e. Opno.1 so the allegation made against the Op no.1 is concocted and malafide and harassive and prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case with cost. The OP no.1 did not file the BNA in support of her case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the case is maintainable or not ?
- Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
- Whether there is deficiency of service .
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issues no.1 -3
All the issues are taken up together for discussions as those are interlinked to each other for the purpose of arriving at a correction decision in the disputes.
Regarding the allegation of the complainant Ld. Lawyer argued that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.1 . Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the case is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Ld. Advocate for the oP no.1 in her written version argued that the case is not maintainable and the complaint petition is harassive and the complainant has no locus standi to file this petition . Op no.1 also disputes that the oP no.1 is no way connected about the booking of gas. The booking of gas made at the Head office by telephone and the op no.1 issued new gas connection as the petition of complainant. Ld. Advocate in the writte4n version states that the real fact is the Deputy Manager, the Territorial Manager visited and made an enquiry in the house of the complainant. They found the multiple connection. The report submitted by the higher authority and locked the said connection of the complainant.
In view of the above facts and circumstances we carefully consider the case of both the parties and documents . The complainant files some documents which reveals that the gas connection is in the name of Anirban Ghosh . Letters of the complainant addressed to O.C.Dadpur P.S with request to treat the complaint as FIR. Cash-memos etc. whereas we have perused the written version wherein the oPno.1 denies and disputes the claim of the
complainant but she has failed to produce any paper regarding inspection. She did not produce any report regarding the locking of the said connection from the higher authority. The burden of proof lies on the part of the oP no.1 . The op has totally failed to prove her case . It is the duty of the oP no.1 to prove the allegation made by the complainant is concocted, harassive and malafide and there is no involve of the OP no.1 which is tantamount to deficiency of service.
In view of this fact we have no option but to accept the plea of the complainant. Therefore, prayer made by the op no.1 cannot be granted in his favour.
Hence
It is ordered the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost. The Op no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8400/- (eight thousand four hundred) only to the complainant as subsidized amount against non delivery of estimated quantity of 24 filled LPG cylinders. Rs, 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) for physical and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) for cost of the case within 60 days from the date of this order
OP no.1 is directed to comply the order within 45 (fortyfive) days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.100/- per day shall be deposited by the oP no.1 to the Consumer Welfare Fund till full settlement of the judgement.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
