DATE OF FILING: 04.06.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 01.07.2017
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the O.P.No.1 vide consumer No.9648 dated 24.12.2011. The O.P.No.2 is a dealer of M/s Indane Gas under the O.P.No.1 in the locality. The O.P.No.3 is supplying gas refills to the consumers of Bikrampur village under khallikote block through its member Smt.Sukanti Gouda. On 08.03.2013 the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 and requested to supply a gas refill as per rule. The O.P.No.2 delayed supplying refill on some pretexts or the other and finally on 20.03.2013 refused to supply any gas cylinder to the complainant. The complainant approached the O.P.No.1 in the matter but the latter did not take any steps. Suspecting the attitude of the O.P.No.2 the complainant verified about supply of refill gas cylinders for him on the internet and found that without the orders from and knowledge of the complainant the O.P.No.2 has delivered refill gas cylinders to some other persons. The complainant humbly submits that only on four different dates he has been supplied with refills as per his book, but the internet copy shown that eleven refill gas cylinders have been supplied to the complainant on the different dates. Thus it is clear that the O.P.No.2 has manipulated the delivered refills to other persons on higher rates. Since the beginning the O.P.No.2 is playing mischief in supplying gas refills to him for which he is facing a lot of difficulties. Due to her deficiency in service, the complainant was forced to purchase two gas refills from the open market at unsubsidized price. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct he O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical agony, Rs.1,900/- towards the cost of two unsubsidized gas refills and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice issued against the O.P.No.1 but he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version, hence he is declared as set ex-parte on dated 06.05.2014. As per order dated 04.05.2016 the O.P.No.2 was deleted from the cause title during the course of proceeding, since the complainant was made an individual member of the Maa Brundabati Self Help Group as a party to this dispute. However, the complainant again added O.P. No.3 i.e. Maa Brundabati Self Help Group as necessary party in this case for proper adjudication of the case and as per the amendment petition dated 07/05/2016 the O.P.No.3 was added in place of O.P.No.2 to saddle the responsibility in place of O.P. No.2 as per the complaint of the complainant.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed version. It is stated the O.P.No.3 is selected as President of the Maa Brundabati Self Help Group, Bharasa on 15.12.2015. Due to long absence of the previous President and Secretary the Brundabati Self Help Group is selected the present President. It is a fact that complainant is a consumer under O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.2 is not a dealer of M/s Indian Gas, under the O.P.No.1 in the locality. The averment of Para 1 is also wrong and fabricated. It is not a fact that on 08.03.2013 the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 and requested to supply a gas refill as per rule. The O.P.No.2 is not a dealer. The averments of Para 4 is false and fabricated. He is to put strict proof of the case. The complainant has not given his empty gas refill and payment against his booking so the O.P.No.3 has not delivered his booking gas refill to the petitioner on such dates. The O.P.No.2 is only a member of the group. She is not wholly managing the distribution system. The complainant has not approached the matter to the O.P.No.3 or O.P.No.1. So it is a clear case of false and fabricated story. As per rule the complainant has to give notice to all the O.Ps regarding the matter but he has not followed the procedure of consumer law hence the O.P.No.3 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost in the best interest of justice.
5. On the date of final hearing advocate for complainant and advocate for O.P.No.3 are present. As per argument of the complainant that the O.P.No.3 did not supply the gas even after booking and on several requests he failed to get the same. On the contrary the O.P.No.3 in his argument stated that the O.P. No.3 was selected as President of Maa Brundabati Self Help Group, Bharasa on 15-12-1015 and due to long absence of the previous president and Secretary the Self Help Group was selected the present President. It is admitted that the present complainant is a consumer under the O.P.No.3 and it is not a fact that on 08.03.2013 the complainant approached O.P.No.3 to supply a gas refill as per rule. The complainant did not give the empty gas refill and payment against his booking to the O.P.No.3 so could not delivered his gas refill to the complainant. It is also argued that the O.P.No.3 is a mere agent, O.P.No.1 is the main gas distributor at Chatrapur and the allegation made by the complainant that during 2012 several gas was supplied in the name of consumer without his knowledge. As O.P.No.3 is the self help group for supplying gas cylinder in the village, the SHG group is only carrying on supply of gas he can’t answer about other gas booked and supplied by O.P.No.1. As O.P.No.1 was ex-parte in this case and not contested the case, we can’t speak anything regarding the specific allegations. There is no deficiency in service on part of the O.P.No.3 and not liable to pay any cost or compensation.
6. We perused the pleadings as submitted above by both parties and verified the documents placed in the case record. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that eleven gas cylinders were supplied by O.P.No.1 in the name of the complainant prior to the dispute arose between the parties. It also appears that the gas supply book of the complainant also does not show how many gas cylinders were delivered by O.Ps to the complainant after cause of action arose since no entry of gas supply made in the book by the O.Ps. So, feel that non-supply of gas cylinder within 48 hours of booking as per rule is amounts to deficiency in service. Domestic consumable gas has become an essential commodity in the day to day life of people now a days and it is considered a negligence and deficiency in service for non-supply in due time period to the complainant. In view of the complaint and considering the arguments of parties to this dispute, the Forum is to decide on following points:
- Whether complainant is entitle to get undisturbed gas supply by the O.Ps.
- Whether complainants entitled to get Rs 1,900/- towards cost of two unsubsidized gas refills for non-supplying of the gas cylinders in time.
- Whether complainant is entitled to get Rs 20,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs 10,000/- towards litigation cost
7. With regard to first issue above we would like to state that complainant is entitle to undisturbed supply the gas to his house as per the guidelines of the government and gas distribution agencies. At the same time Forum likes to say that complainant submitted all relevant documents to the gas dealer and distributor as per the new rules and regulations for the supply of the gas but the complainant failed to get the gas during the time of need hence it is considered as deficiency in service. The contention of the O.P.No.3 that the complainant failed to submit empty cylinder is not proved since no documentary evidence or affidavit filed by them. At the same time we feel that the complainant who is in need of gas cylinder may not deny for providing empty cylinder to the O.P.No.3 hence we are not inclined to accept the contention of the O.P.No.3. We, therefore, view that the O.P.No.3 is deficient in service for non-supply of the gas cylinder to the complainant in time even after booking. As per rule the complainant is entitled for undisturbed gas supply and the O.Ps are liable to supply the same as and when it was booked within the supply rules.
8. With regards to second point, the complainant has claimed Rs 1900/- towards cost of two unsubsidized gas refills to be paid by the O.Ps for their deficiency in service and negligence. However, the complainant has not submitted any detail justification on the basis of which that amount to be paid to the complainant. We feel that the O.P.No.3 is responsible for non-supply of the gas even after duly booked by the complainant so there is deficiency in service on part of the O.P.No.3. The contention of the O.P.No.3 that the complainant did not supply empty cylinder and cost of the gas to the supplier is not acceptable to this Forum. We, therefore, feel that the O.P.No.3 is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service. As for as the compensation is concerned, in our view it would be just and proper to pay Rs.500/- by the O.P.No.3 to the complainant for the deficiency in service for non-supply of the gas cylinder in time in the fact and circumstance of the case.
9. With regards to third point as made above, we would like to say that in this case, the O.P.No.1 even after receipt of the notice did not prefer to appear and contest his case. On perusal of the case record, we also find that the O.P.No.1 has not properly supervised the supply of gas by the O.P.No.3. Therefore, the O.P.No.1 is also equally liable and deficient in service for non-supply of the gas to the present consumer. Besides, it is also proved that in connivance with the O.P.No.3, the O.P.No.1 has distributed a total of 11 gas cylinders in the name of present consumer during the period from 01/04/2012 to 20/02/2013 which was not entered in the gas book of the complainant. It appears that the O.P.No.1 along with distributor i.e. O.P.No.3 has made some unfair trade practice and unscrupulously supplied gas refills to unknown persons in the name of the complainant. Hence, it is certainly an example of unfair trade practice and the O.Ps are liable to compensate the complainant non supply of gas and unauthorized supply of his gas cylinders to the unknown persons unfair way for earning profit thereof. In our considered view, the O.P.No.1 is equally responsible for non-supply of the gas to the complainant and unauthorizedly selling the gas cylinders of the complainant to other in the open market as is evident from Annexure-3. We, therefore, decided to impose some exemplary compensation on the O.P.No.1 to be paid to the complainant for his unfair trade practice. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in our considered view, as per the fact and circumstance of the case, we think it will be just and proper to pay Rs.1,500/- by the O.P.No.1 towards compensation to the complainant for gas cylinders since the O.P.No.1 unauthorizedly sold gas cylinders of the complainant in the open market. Besides that we would also like to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-(each Rs.500/- by the O.P No.1 &3) to the complainant towards cost of litigation. In the light of the above discussion we partially allowed the case of the complainant against O.P.No.1&3 and as discussed above in this case the O.P.No.2 was deleted as per the order dated 04.05.2016 of this Forum.
10. In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partially against O.P.No.1&3. The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only to the complainant towards compensation for non-supply of refilled gas cylinders to the complainant in time and for adopting unfair trade practice. The O.P.No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Similarly, the O.P.No.3 is directed to supply gas cylinders regularly to the complainant and simultaneously to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.P.No.1 & 3 within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same under Section 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly the case of the complainant is disposed of.
11. The order is pronounced on this day of 1st July 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
