DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/68/2021

Date of Institution   : 11.02.2021

Date of Decision    : 31.03.2023

Preet Mohinder Singh son of Sh. Paramjit Singh resident of St. No. 9, G.T.B. Nagar, Handiaya Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.          

                          …Complainant Versus

1. M/s Barnala Gas Service, Indane Gas Agency, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its authorized signatory. 

2. The Indane Area Office, Chandigarh, India Oil Corporation Ltd., (M.D.), Tel Bhawan, Plot No. 6-A, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 through its authorized signatory.  

                       …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. J.P.S. Uggoke counsel for complainant.

Sh. Varun Singla counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. S.M. Gupta counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Preet Mohinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against M/s Barnala Gas Service and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the the complainant is consumer of opposite parties for the last so many years and having consumer No./ID 22572/7500000034905558 with the opposite party No. 1. It is further alleged that on 29.1.2021 the complainant booked the LPG Cylinder with the opposite party No. 2 vide reference No. 2-000983613309 and the expected delivery of the same shown as 1 day(s). On 1.2.2021 at 2:34 PM the complainant got received a message from Indane Gas that invoice has been generated for Rs. 715/- and the complainant had to share DAC 4563 on delivery. It is alleged that on 3.2.2021 very early morning at 2:15 AM the complainant received the message from the company that booking No. 2-000983613309 has been cancelled due to returned thrice, however, no one from the side of opposite party No. 1 came to the house of the complainant to deliver the LPG Cylinder. It is further alleged that on 3.2.2021 the complainant visited the premises of the opposite party No. 1 and inquired about the cancellation of gas delivery to the complainant but the opposite party No. 1 started misbehaving with the complainant and started using filthy language towards the complainant and told him that they will not deliver the gas cylinder at the premises of the complainant and the complainant will have to take the delivery of gas cylinder himself. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 with ulterior motive and with malafide intention have not delivered the gas cylinder at the premises of the complainant and the above said act and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 falls under the definition of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It is further alleged that the officials of the opposite party No. 2 have not inquired about the fact of returning of thrice of gas cylinder from the complainant as the officials of opposite party No. 2 also have a registered contact number of the complainant. Even, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2021 through his counsel to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to give any reply of the said notice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental shock, pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses in total Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant. 

ii) Further, the opposite party No. 2 also be directed to cancel the gas agency of opposite party No. 1 due to unfair trade practice and for misbehaving committed by their employees towards the complainant. 

iii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Commission deems fit. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, the present complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form, the complainant has not come with clean hands etc. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that on 1.2.2021 tax invoice was generated and the delivery boy of the opposite party No. 1 went to the house of the complainant to deliver the gas cylinder but the door of the house of the complainant was locked. On 2.2.2021 again the delivery boy of the opposite party No. 1 went to the house of the complainant to deliver the gas cylinder but the house of the complainant was again locked and even on 3.2.2021 the delivery boy went to the house of complainant and found the house locked. As such, the opposite party No. 1 went thrice to the house of complainant to deliver the gas cylinder to the complainant. Thereafter, on 3.2.2021 the booking was cancelled with the reason “Booking has been cancelled due to returned thrice”. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 providing the services to the complainant from the last few years peacefully without any type of hindrance and there is no act or omission on the part of opposite party No. 1. As such, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the party of opposite party No. 1 and finally the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written version by taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and suppressed material facts, the complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as per the agreement entered between the distributor i.e. the opposite party No. 1  and the India Oil Corporation, the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent or on account of the corporation. The present complaint false and frivolous and is an abuse of process of the court.

6. On merits, it is submitted that as per the process of refilling booking once refilling booking is received a standard system generated message is auto triggered to customers with delivery authentication code (DAC). It is further submitted that as per clause No. 17 of the Distributorship agreement in all contracts entered into by the distributor with the customer for sale of LPG, the distributor shall act and shall always deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent of the India Oil Corporation and the Indian Oil Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of contracts, engagements or any act or omission on the part of the distributor. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

7. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of consumer copy Ex.C-2, copies of messages received by Indane Gas Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shital Kumar as Ex.O.P1/1, copy of invoice/delivery slip Ex.O.P1/2, affidavit of Gagandeep Singh Ex.O.P1/3 and closed the evidence. 

9. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Kumar as Ex.O.P2/1, copy of agreement Ex.O.P2/2 (containing 15 pages) and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties. 

11. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the the complainant is consumer of opposite parties for the last so many years and having consumer No./ID 22572/7500000034905558 with the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Ex.C-2. It is further argued that on 29.1.2021 the complainant booked the LPG Cylinder with the opposite party No. 2 vide reference No. 2-000983613309 and the expected delivery of the same shown as 1 day i.e. Ex.C-3. It is also argued that on 1.2.2021 at 2:34 PM the complainant got received a message from Indane Gas that invoice has been generated for Rs. 715/- and the complainant had to share DAC 4563 on delivery i.e. Ex.C-4. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that on 3.2.2021 very early morning at 2:15 AM the complainant received the message from the company that booking No. 2-000983613309 has been cancelled due to returned thrice, however, no one from the side of opposite party No. 1 came to the house of the complainant to deliver the LPG Cylinder which shows from Ex.C-4 It is further argued that on 3.2.2021 the complainant visited the premises of the opposite party No. 1 and inquired about the cancellation of gas delivery to the complainant but the opposite party No. 1 started misbehaving with the complainant and started using filthy language towards the complainant and told him that they will not deliver the gas cylinder at the premises of the complainant and the complainant will have to take the delivery of gas cylinder himself. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant  that the above said act and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 falls under the definition of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It is further argued that the officials of the opposite party No. 2 have not inquired about the fact of returning of thrice of gas cylinder from the complainant as the officials of opposite party No. 2 also have a registered contact number of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2021 i.e. Ex.C-5 through his counsel to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to give any reply of the said notice.

12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that on 1.2.2021 tax invoice was generated i.e. Ex.O.P1/2 and the delivery boy of the opposite party No. 1 went to the house of the complainant to deliver the gas cylinder but the door of the house of the complainant was locked. It is further argued by the opposite party No. 1 that on 2.2.2021 again the delivery boy of the opposite party No. 1 went to the house of the complainant to deliver the gas cylinder but the house of the complainant was again locked and even on 3.2.2021 the delivery boy went to the house of complainant and found the house locked. So, the opposite party No. 1 went thrice to the house of complainant to deliver the gas cylinder to the complainant and on 3.2.2021 the booking was cancelled with the reason “Booking has been cancelled due to returned thrice”. It is further argued by the opposite party No. 1 that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the party of opposite party No. 1. 

13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also argued that as per the process of refilling booking once refilling booking is received a standard system generated message is auto triggered to customers with delivery authentication code (DAC). It is further argued that as per clause No. 17 of the Distributorship agreement in all contracts entered into by the distributor with the customer for sale of LPG, the distributor shall act and shall always deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent of the India Oil Corporation and the Indian Oil Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of contracts, engagements or any act or omission on the part of the distributor. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. 

14. On the perusal of the file it is proved that the complainant has booked the LPG Cylinder with the opposite party No. 2 on 29.1.2021 and in this regard a message has been received by the complainant on his registered mobile number with reference No. 2-000983613309 with the expected delivery 1 day Ex.C-3. On 1.2.2021 at 2:34 PM the complainant has received another message from Indane Gas that invoice has been generated for Rs. 715/- Ex.C-4 but on 3.2.2021 very early morning at 2:15 AM the complainant has received another message on his registered mobile that booking No. 2-000983613309 has been cancelled due to returned thrice. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 has claimed that the delivery boy has gone to the house of complainant thrice for the delivery of gas cylinder and to prove this fact the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record Ex.O.P1/2 on which it has been written that on 1.2.2021, 2.2.2021 and 3.2.2021 the house of the complainant found locked and nobody was present in the house on all these occasion. But on the perusal of Ex.O.P1/2 it shows that the same has been written only by the gas agency staff because on the receipt Ex.O.P1/2 no counter signatures of the neighbour of the complainant has been taken by the delivery boy. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 has failed to call the complainant for the delivery of gas cylinder because the opposite party No. 1 is having the registered contact number of the complainant on which the complainant has received the above said messages. It is not possible that on all the above said three occasions nobody was present in the house of complainant for the delivery of gas cylinder because the booking of gas cylinder was very well within the knowledge of complainant by taking the above said messages on his registered mobile number. Moreover, the LPG Cylinder is the bare necessity for the daily life without which life becomes very difficult. Further, we are of the view that a person only booked the gas cylinder as and when urgently required and it is not possible that a person who booked the gas cylinder and received the message about generating of invoice did not take its delivery even when the delivery boy visited his house thrice. Therefore, it is proved that the opposite party No. 1 did not deliver the gas cylinder to the complainant despite its booking which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. 

15. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

16. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

17. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       31st Day of March, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member