SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Kundan Luha of Pensionpara, Sambalpur has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of Indane gas under distributor Munda Gas Service, Sambalpur (O.P.No.1) having Consumer No.15984. On dt.15.3.2014 he tried to ring to the land line telephone bearing of No.0663 2520299 of office of Munda Gas Service from 9 -10 A.M., but the telephone office replied that the number is wrong. So, on the same day he went to the office of the O.P.No.1 at about around 10.45 A.M. and asked the person managing the office to book a refill gas cylinder. But they out rightly rejected his request and told the complainant, that he should book the order for refill gas on phone.                                                                                                                                       

                2. Complainant said to the person that BSNL is informing him that the number is wrong and dial the correct number and after sometime the call was complete, then someone received the call on behalf of Munda Gas Service, but the person was not giving any reply. Complainant tried to contact the owner of Munda Ggas Service over her mobile, but she also did not receive the call. Complainant was detained in the office of O.P.No.1 for half an hour and after that the date 15.3.2014 was written by the staff of O.P.No.1. Complainant asked the staff to give him the booking serial number. The staff of O.P.No.1 denied and asked to come after 3-4 days to take the booking serial number, to which complainant said  them that it is not the correct procedure. But the staff got angry and said that this is the rule of our office. The complainant enquired about the procedure from   Mr. Ansuman Rath , Area Manager of O.P.No.2. He informed that this is not the correct procedure.

                3. Complainant further alleges that the staff of Munda Gas Service, O.P.No.1, misbehaved him and put him into trouble.  The staffs of O.P.No.1 are telling that after delivery of refill gas cylinder, you can book for a further refill gas after 22 days and after booking of the refill gas, it will be delivered after 10-12 days. Complainant asked them to give him in writing about the above oral assertion to which they misbehaved with him and told that this is our agency and we can do whatever we like.

                4. Complainant had filed an application under R.T.I. Act before the O.P.No.2, wherein they have replied that the above assertion of the staff of Munda Gas Service is not correct. But O.P.No.2 is not taking any remedial action against the O.P.No.1.

                5. Basing on the above , complainant alleges that Munda Gas Service, O.P.No.1 has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice putting him into trouble and prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- and direction to O.P.No.1 that such mistake should not be repeated.

                6. Complainant has filed Xerox copies of: (1) Affidavit, gas connection application form and certificate issued by O.P.No.2 (2) Information under RTI Act supplied by I.O.C.L. (O.P.No.2) (3) K.Y.C. acknowledgement Receipt (4) Gas card showing booking and delivery of refill gas.

                7. Both the O.Ps appeared through their Advocates and filed their separate written versions. In its version O.P.No.2 states that it has verified the refill booking record and found that there is booking reference Sl.No.2000022428 dt.15.3.2014, which is shown as cancelled and subsequently there is a booking Sl.No.2000024880 on dt.31.3.2014 and the refill gas was delivered on the same day i.e. 31.3.2014.

                8. O.P.No.2 further avers that the allegations made by the complainant are not specific, hence it has not initiated any action and refill booking record shows that complainant has been delivered refill gas regularly against bookings. According to O.P.No.2, O.P.No.1 is supposed to act as per the guidelines provided by it and any deviation therefrom attracts penalty. O.P.No.2 further states that there is so such restriction to customers for booking LPG refills at distributors. LPG refill booking is done through I.V.R.S/SMS mode. There is no manual intervention of distributor’s staff on refill booking. O.P.No.2 states regarding the method of refill booking registration, but does not say as to on which date this system was started, whether prior to dt.15.3.2014, the date of allegation or after that date.

                9. O.P.No.2 submits that complainant was called upon to establish the misconduct by the staff of the concerned distributor, but took no action on the ground that the matter is subjudice.  O.P.No.2 has filed Annexure-1 which is the consumer refill details of the complainant.                                                                                                                                                           

                10 In its written version, O.P.No.1 has admitted the para-1 of the complaint petition, but denied regarding the allegation made in para-2.  O.P.No.1 states that K.Y.C. has not been submitted.O.P.No.1 further avers that complainant was receiving refill gas cylinders from the O.P.No.1 prior to March, 2014 regularly and it has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

                11. O.P.No.1 states that as per direction of Government of India relating to booking of refill gas cylinder, wherein it shows that the gas agencies are not directly involved in booking of refill gas. It is for the customer to book the refill gas cylinder directly with the company by way of their personal mobile number by sending SMS and the gas agency is supplying refill gas cylinder to the customer as per the order of booking provided by the Company, O.P.No.2 to O.P.No.1. Hence, O.P.No.1 has not violated any consumer interest of the complainant.

                12. Heard the parties and perused the complaint petition, written versions filed by the Opposite parties and documents placed on record. The complainant in his application submitted to O.P.No.1 has given his address as Pensionpara, Dhanupali, Sambalpur, but in the gas delivery book it is shown to be Kumbharpada, Budharaja, Sambalpur. This was not corrected by O.P.No.1. The gas card issued by O.P.No.2 also carries the above mistake and it was also not corrected though K.Y.C. and consumer information sheet was submitted by the complainant.

                13. The denial by O.P.No.1 regarding the complaint filed is not a positive denial. The denials are totally general. It is also silent regarding the allegation of the complainant that O.P.No.1 is not responding to the call on its land line telephone number and it is also silent about when the refill booking through SMS was started, whether it is prior to the date of allegation i.e.15.3.2014 or after that.

                14. O.P.No.2 has also not specified when the I.V.R.S./SMS system came into effect. The annexure-1 filed by O.P.No.2 is not tallying with the Xerox copy of gas book filed by the complainant. Though 15.3.2014 has been written in the Xerox copy of the gas book by staff of O.P.No.1, no delivery date has been mentioned against this. The annexure-1 filed by O.P.No.2 also shows that delivery is after a minimum period of 13 days from the date of booking. This delay of two weeks is not properly explained by both the O.Ps.

                15. O.P.No.1 is further silent regarding the misbehavior of its staff with the complainant as alleged. They are hiding behind the general denial, which is not permissible under law. O.P.No.2 has not taken any action against O.P.No.1 on the complaint of the complainant on the plea that the matter is subjudice. Hence we feel that O.P.No.2 should have conducted a detailed enquiry into the allegations made by the complainant and prepared a report, but it has not done so.

                16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we came to the following conclusion:

(a) O.P.No.2 is directed to ensure that the length of refill delivery period be reduced to one week.

(b) When the customer is specifically alleging that staff of O.P.No.1 misbehaved with him, action should have been initiated against the distributor, O.P.No.1, which has not been done.

(c ) O.P.No.2 to keep watch eye on the agency  so that this type of allegation does not occur in future.                                                                                                                

                17. Case of the complaint is allowed against Munda Gas Service, Sambalpur, O.P.No.1 and we hold that it has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. O.P.No.1 is directed to keep leash on its staff and they should not misbehave with any customer. The denials to the complaint made by O.P.No.1 are general and not specific. As such the allegations made are proved. O.P.No.1 is warned not to repeat such misbehavior with the customers in future. O.P.No.1 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) towards compensation within 30 days of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 (Nine) per cent per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.