IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 28/2013 (Filed on 01.03.2013)
Between:
Mariamma Kurian,
Karukeyil House,
West Othera.P.O.,
Kuttoor Panchayat,
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta
Pin – 689 551 ….. Complainant
And:
M/s. Mathews,
Indane Gas Service,
Thiruvalla.P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(By Adv. K. Saileshkumar) ….. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite party.
2. The complainant is a subscriber of the opposite party and she had not received gas cylinder after 19.12.2012. Her attempt to contact the opposite party through telephone for booking gas cylinder ended in failure. So she directly went to the office of opposite party on 01.01.2013 and enquired the reason for non-attending telephone calls. At that time, they told that they are busy in selling the application forms for Rs.20/- in connection with the govt. subsidy. Then the complainant asked for her booking which was made by the opposite party’s office staff. They also told that she has to pay the full amount which is agreed by her as she had already availed all subsidy cylinder allotted by the government. After one month they told her that her booking is postponed to 19th January as the number of subsidy cylinders is increased by the government. Thereafter the complainant contacted the proprietor of the opposite party through telephone and at that time he assured the complainant that he will do the needful. Even after this also there was no action from the opposite party. Then she went to the office of the opposite party and made enquiry regarding the delivery of cylinder and she got information that the delivery will be only on 20th February. On hearing this complainant asked about the reasons for the delay. But they told that don’t ask such question. Therefore, she had submitted a complaint in writing in this regard. Even after all this, opposite party didn’t supplied cylinder to the complainant so far. Because of the non-supply of gas cylinder, the complainant was compelled to make other alternative arrangements for cooking by using fire wood and kerosene oil. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for redressing the grievances of the complainant and for getting relief for her mental agony and strain.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. Opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite party, he is the agent of Indane Oil Corporation and they regularly supplied gas cylinders as per the supervision and rules and regulation of I.O.C. So the IOC is a necessary party to the proceedings. But they are not impleaded in the complaint. So this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The customer history card maintained in the software of computer would prove that the opposite party has supplied gas cylinders regularly without any failure within the prescribed period from the booking date. On 14.09.2012, the Central Govt. has limited the number of domestic cylinder with subsidy as 6 for the financial year 2012-2013. In the meantime complainant has already availed 6 subsidy cylinders. So the complainant is not entitled to get subsidy cylinder for the month of January 2013. So the complainant was asked for booking the non-subsidized cylinder and complainant made her booking also, on 02.01.2013. Subsequently on 18.01.2013 government increased the number of subsidized cylinder as 9. In the circumstances, the opposite party is not able to supply non-subsidized cylinder to the complainant. So the opposite party directed the complainant to cancel the earlier booking of the non-subsidized cylinder which was not complied by the complainant. Instead of canceling the booking for non-subsidized cylinder complainant made booking for subsidized cylinder. So on the very next day, 19.01.2013, opposite party cancelled the previous booking and effected the subsequent booking for protecting the interest of the complainant as instructed by IOC. Thereafter on 13.02.2013 opposite party sent cylinder to the complainant for delivery. But it was not delivered to the complainant for the reason that house of the complainant was locked. Then subsequently the same was delivered to the complainant on 27.02.2013. Thus opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant as alleged by the complainant. With the above contention, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 series and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party has not delivered gas cylinder to the complainant after 19.12.2012, the last date on which cylinder was delivered to the complainant, in spite of the complainant’s request and demands over telephone and by personal meeting. The above said act of the opposite party put the complainant to much hardships and inconvenience which is a clear deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 2 documents. The said documents were marked as Exts.A1, A2 and A2(a). Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the customer card issued in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the carbon copy of a request dated 16.02.2013 submitted by the complainant to the manager of opposite party. Ext.A2(a) is that particular portion of Ext.A2 showing the acknowledgment of the said request by the opposite parties.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has not supplied cylinder is false. Some delay was caused during 2013 January due to some technical problems. The complainant had already availed all subsidy cylinders during the end of 2012 December as per the direction of the govt. So the complainant placed her booking for a non-subsidy cylinder. Subsequent to the said booking govt. enhanced subsidy cylinders to 9 from 6 cylinders. So the non-subsidy booking of the complainant was cancelled and proceedings for new booking for the subsidy cylinder was done. Because of the said changing circumstances some delay occurred in the delivery of the cylinder to the complainant. This delay was not occurred due to any laches of the complainant. Thereafter also the complainant was supplied cylinders. However on 13.02.2013, opposite party sent cylinder to the complainant. But it was returned undelivered because the house of the complainant was locked. Subsequently the same was delivered on 27.02.2013. Thus according to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service from his part. With the above contentions, opposite party argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, opposite party was examined as DW1 and document produced is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the extract of the customer history card in the name of the complainant kept at the office of the opposite party showing the transactions from 02.05.2012 to 17.04.2013.
10. On the basis of the arguments and contentions of the parties, we have perused all materials on record. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has not delivered any cylinder to the complainant from 19.12.2012 to 26.02.2013. On a perusal of Ext.A1 and B1, the complainant’s allegation is found true. But the contention of the opposite party with regard to the non-delivery of cylinder during the alleged period is that it so happened due to technical problems in connection of the booking and delivery of subsidy cylinders as per the norms and directions of the govt. The above contention of the opposite party is not objected by the complainant and she had also not adduced any evidence to counter the argument of the opposite party. At the same time, Ext.A1 and B1 clearly shows that delivery of cylinders made regularly without long gap except in between January and February 2013. So we don’t find any deficiency in service against the opposite party as alleged by the complainant and hence this complaint is not allowable.
11. However, gas agencies are service providers and they are duty bound to discharge their duties promptly and their services should be free from allegations from their customers. So the opposite party is directed to act accordingly.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above directions. Complaint dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of May, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mariamma Kurien.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the customer card issued in the name of
the complainant.
A2 : Carbon copy of a request dated 16.02.2013 submitted by
the complainant to the manager of opposite party.
A2(a): Relevant portion of Ext.A2.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Raju George.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Customer history card.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Mariamma Kurian, Karukeyil House, West Othera.P.O.
Kuttoor Panchayat, Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta, Pin – 689 551. (2) M/s. Mathews, Indane Gas Service, Thiruvalla.P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(3) The Stock File.
