Santosh Kumar Dash,
aged about 50 years,
S/o-Krupasindhu Dash,
Village/P.o:-Tukla, Via:- Khariar,
Dist-Nuapada ,Odisha.
……… Complainant.
Vs.
1.M/s Dhanapati Indane Gas,
Indane Distributors, Khariar,
Dist-Nuapada ,Odisha -766107.
2.The General manager ( LPG- MO),
Indian Oil Co.ltd, Regd Office:
Indian Oil Bhawan,G-9,Ali Yavar Jung
Marg,Bandra (East),Mumbai -400051.
3.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd represented
Through Chairman, Indian Oil corporation Ltd,
Regd Office:Indian Oil Bhawan,G-9,Ali Yavar
Jung Marg,Bandra (East),Mumbai -400051.
…….. Opp Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
Hon’ble Mr. K.K.Tripathy …….. President,
Hon’ble Mrs. T.S.Panda ……… Member(w),
Hon’ble Mr. B.B.Mishra ……… Member.
APPEARANCE.
For Complainant - In person
For OP No.1,2 &3- Mr. M.D.Panda & Associates
Date of Order - 17.03.2015
JUDGEMENT.
Brief facts :- The petitioner has booked for a refilled Gas Cylinder at OP No.1, who is functioning his business under the OP No.2 & 3.But the supplied Cylinder Gas has been leaked while open the seal, the Gas has leaked rapidly with a high speed for which the wife of the complainant became senseless and gets sense after removing her from the Kitchen to outside after 15 minute with First Aid treatment. Thereafter the family members and friends personally rushed to the said agency but the said agency remained silent the grievances of the complainant’s family members and thereafter the son of the complainant reported the matter in writing before the IIC,Khariar ,Police Station on 13.04.2014 vide SDE No. 279 at about 5 pm.
Thereafter the leakage Cylinder has been replaced by the staff members of the OP No.1 in presence of complainant’s family & friend with authenticate receipt after a long days gap of the incident. The complainant approached the Ops on several times to redress the grievances but they have not taken any steps on the said matter so the complainant knocked the door of this forum to get relief as prayed for.
The complainant has filed the Xerox copies of documents as follows:-
1.Xerox copy of Consumer Card.
2.Xerox copy of F.I.R
3.Xerox copy of replacement receipt.
4.Xerox copy of News Paper cut piece-2 nos.
Being noticed ,the Ops appeared and filed their written version. The Ops have denied the entire allegations made by the complainant in complaint petition. They have also started in their version that the allegation are totally false and baseless and the complainant is not entitle to get any relief.
OP No.1 has filed a separate affidavit in support of their claim, dated 23.02.2015.The OP No. 2 & 3 have filed a Xerox copies of agreement and LGP marketing discipline guideline,2001.
As per the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered:-
Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the oppositeparties ?
Whether the case is maintainable and there is cause of action?
To what relief, if any the complainant is entitled?
ISSUE No.-1 &2
So far the issue No.1 & 2 are concern, it seems from the case record that the complainant does not disclose the date and the name of person who took the gas refill LPG cylinder from the OP No-1 on perusal of records as well as the documents of OP No-1 it is seen that the CNC Cash Memo signed by the receiver proves that the LPG Cylinder refill was tested for leakage and weight to his satisfaction and after being satisfied the cylinder of LPG, he signed the counter of cash Memo and received a copy of the same on 12.04.2014 and he was availed the CNC rebate of Rs.16.47 and took the filled cylinder from the Godown premises of OPO No-1 from Khariar after proper testing. Also all the customers avails CNC rebate who use to take the refill LPG cylinder from the Godown.
It is also seen that before delivering check by opening the seal for leakage and weight were tested in presence of receiver and after being satisfied that the Cylinder was leakage free and correct weight and he signed the cash Memo counter confirmed the same and took the LPG refill cylinder.
Further it is seen that the complainant has not alleged in his complaint that the cylinder had leakage at the time of delivery on 12.04.2014 from the godown of OP No-1 at Khariar. So it in proved that the cylinder was sound in condition.
On perusal of xerox copies of documents filed by the complainant is not admissible in the eye of law and as such it is failed to support the claim of the complainant.
In another factual aspect is that the complaint petition and the said documents of Complainant are contradict and confused between each other and it will not help to the complainant in any manner and as such benefit goes in favour of the Ops.
Further it is seen that the compliant petition does not disclose the date on which the Complainant has signed and verified the Complaint Petition.
In another vital paint is that the Complainant does not disclose that the Complainant or his son was present during the incident. He has also failed to disclose as to who opened the seal of the Cylinder but the extract of SDE reveals the Amrjit Singh Dash opened the seal .
Further it is seen that the Complaint made by said Amarjit Das on 13.04.2014 before the IIC, Khariar P.S mentions “My Gas Customer Number is 10851” but it is false that he was/is the customer.
Though the Complainant has initially failed to prove his case, here there is no negligence and deficiency in service by the Ops and no cause of action and as such the Case is not maintainable.
Accordingly both the issue answered infavour of the OPs.
ISSUE No.-3
It is clear crystal that the Complainant has failed to prove his case in all corners and as such he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Accordingly this issue answered infavour of the OPs.
O R D E R
Considered upon the facts and circumstances there is no any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
Accordingly the case is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 17th day of March 2015.
