DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.

Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2015

Date of filing: 11.5.2015                                                             Date of disposal: 16.02.2016

Complainant:    Sk. Kamaluddin, S/o. Late Sk. Ajad, Village & Post Office: Ketugram, Police Station: Ketugram, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 140.

• V E R S U S -

Opposite Party:    1. M/s. Jyotsna HP Gas Service Centre, represented through its Proprietor, having its office at Village & Post Office: Panchudi, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 123.         

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., represented by General Manager, East Zone, having its office at 771, Anandapur, Opposite of EM Bypass, Kolkata, W.B., 700 107.

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  None.

J U D G E M E N T

This is a complaint  u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 with a  payer for an award of Rs. 20,000=00 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs. 10,000=00 towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost for non-delivery of L.P.G. cylinder.

The complaint in brief is that-

            The complainant is a regular domestic consumer having Consumer ID No. 600196 of L.P.G. of Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited – op-2, the distributor of which is M/s. Jyotsna H.P. Gas Service Centre - the op-1. The complainant used to book his refill availing of either the IVRS System by his registered mobile no. 9474051529 or through online booking system on their consumer portal. The complainant has submitted his refill gas book from where he has shown how the booking has been done and how the cylinders have been delivered to the complainant. From the book, the complainant has shown that he has got 10 refills in a year whereas he is entitled to get 12 refills in a year as per the Government order. The complainant has regularly made correspondences with the op-1 complaining the delayed delivery by the distributor through e-mail. The complainant has also brought allegation about the rough behavior of the distributor. The complainant’s main allegation is that he has got 10 refills in a year due to delayed delivery instead of 12 refills in a year as per the Government order.  Hence, it is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the case arose.

            Notices were duly served upon the op-1 & op-2 to contest the case but none appeared from the side of the ops and hence the case was heard ex parte. No written version from op-1 & op-2 was received to this end.

Decision with reasons:-

            The ld. Advocate for the complainant raised the question of deficiency in service against the ops in delivering the refills to the complainant. On perusing gas book and complaint, it is observed that from the date of booking of refills and the delivery of refills, the 4^th refills have been delivered within 14 days, 5^th refill within 16 days, 6^th refill within 28 days, 7^th refill within 31 days, 8^th refills within 30 days, 9^th refill within 31 days and 10^th refill within 34 days. That is, there is no deliberation in delaying the supply of refill from the op-1 which is also evident from e-mail correspondences between the complainant and the op-1, the distributor of Gas Company. Every time the op-1 has replied and has given the reason for delay in delivery of refills.

            The ld. Counsel for the complainant has raised a matter of booking and delivery of refills during his arguments. The ld. Counsel argued that the rule of gas booking is that after delivery of a refill, a consumer will not be able to book for another refill within 21 days from the date of delivery of the previous refill. That is why the complainant has not been able to book 12 refills in a year. But the ld. Advocate could not supply any document in support of his contention in the matter of such 21 days.  So the question of unfair trade practice from the op-1 does not arise. The complainant has booked for 10 refills in a year on different dates and he has got those 10 refills in subsequent dates. As the complainant has not booked for 12 refills in a year, so the question of deficiency in service from the op-1 does not arise.

            So the complaint does not succeed.

            Fees paid is correct.

            Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is dismissed ex parte against the ops without any cost.

            Let plain copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

                     (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                    President       

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                     (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                              Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                                                (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                                                         Member   

                                                                                  DCDRF, Burdwan