DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 195 of 27-4-2012
Decided on 30-08-2012
Jasvir Singh, aged about 52 years s/o Mohinder Singh, resident of # 24554 Street No.1 Haji Rattan Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
M/s Narain Gas Agency, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. SCF 39, Phase I Model Town, Bathinda through its proprietor Rupinder Kaur s(W).
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Plot No.3-A Sector 19A Madhya Marg Chandigarh through its Area Sales Manager Suresh Sharma.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Plot No.9-G Marketing Division, Ali Yavarjung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai 400 051 through Mr.A.N. Jha.
The District Food & Supplies Controller, Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
Distt.Magistrate Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Jasvir Singh, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Sh. Abhey Singla,counsel for opposite party Nos.2&3.
Sh.M.L Bansal, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulab Singh A.R of opposite party No.4.
Opposite party No.5 already ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In the instant complaint, the complainant has alleged that he is holding a gas connection new No.2627 and old No.7301 bearing SV No.4179960000146 of the opposite party No.1 which is controlled and regulated under the supervision of the opposite party Nos.2 & 5 and Rupinder Kaur is the proprietor of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1/M/s Johnson Gas Agency Bathinda, was being run and managed by Mr.Jabarjang Singh and due to the various reasons his gas agency was cancelled. Due to the cancellation of the gas agency, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 made the temporary arrangement and supply was given by Sangat Indane Service Sangat Mandi, Distt. Bathinda. At that time the supply of the refill cylinders was very smooth and as per satisfaction of the consumers, though the regular supply was being made from a distance of 22 kms. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have recommended gas agency for Bathinda in S.C (W) quota and the opposite parties have started the agency M/s Narain Gas Agency since then the opposite party No.1 is not supplying the gas regularly and sometimes gas is being supplied after months such as supply was given on 29.1.2012 and thereafter it was supplied on 12.3.2012 i.e. after more than 42 days and booking was not being made regularly. The opposite party No.1 has issued instructions to the staff that booking be not made prior to 25 days. The opposite parties had not been attending the telephonic calls of the consumers including the calls of the complainant. He enquired about the status of the booking of the gas in the morning on 20th April, 2012 and no satisfactory reply was given despite three calls were made by him. On 23.4.2012 in the morning, he again enquired about the status of supply of gas, Rupinder Kaur Proprietor started abusing him. In the evening of 23rd April, he approached the opposite party No.1 regarding supply of gas then she again misbehaved and threw away his consumer card and have insulted him in the full public view and in the presence of his colleagues those are junior to him. By throwing the consumer card the opposite party No.1 has insulted the complainant as well as the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as the consumer card is the property of the company. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Area Sales Manager, Suresh Sharma on telephone but he cannot be contacted on 94172-17937 as it turned to be the number of the customer care. This number has been displayed on the notice board of the opposite party No.1. It has been mentioned on the notice board in case of any complaint contact Area Sales Manager on this number (94172-17937). The complainant further alleged that he is entitled to take the gas supply from the opposite parties but the opposite party No.1 is adamant as it neither supplied the refill of gas nor shown the stock available with it nor displayed the same on the notice board. The complainant further alleged that due to non supply of the gas cylinder, he has to arrange the gas cylinder by spending Rs.1000/- to cook the food. The opposite parties are selling the gas cylinders of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 in black in the market and the opposite parties are encouraging the trend of the black marketing at the cost of public at large. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties to supply the gas cylinders regularly as per the norms and as required by the complainant, not to misbehave with the customers who are lifeline of the opposite parties alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this forum has filed its separate written statement and has pleaded that there is no complaint against the opposite party No.1 from any corner of the society and services provided are best in the region. The supply of gas is regularly given to the consumers as the opposite parties is getting the supply from the depot and there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation of booking being not regular is incorrect. The opposite parties have never given any instruction to the staff to book the gas cylinder after 25 days as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is very punctual to attend the telephone calls for booking of the refill gas cylinders. The complainant has intentionally and purposely to trap and pressurize the opposite party No.1 and to get undue benefit gave wrong facts in the complaint. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that Rupinder Kaur is very humble and never misbehaved with consumers especially with the complainant. The complainant boasting himself to be the close friend of the judicial officer and openly threatened the opposite party No.1 that most of the judges used to touch his feet. The complainant is getting the regular supply i.e. he booked the request for refilling on 31.12.2011 and delivered the refill on 10.1.2012, and booked on 11.3.2012, delivered on 12.3.2012 and again booking was made on 2.5.2012 and refilling was sent on 19.5.2012 to his house but he did not get the refilling and refused to sign the delivery voucher. The opposite party No.1 again sent the refilling on 1.6.2012 but he did not accept the refilling and started abusing the filthy language against the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is regularly supplying the gas as per availability.
3. The opposite party Nos.2 & 3 after appearing before this forum have filed their separate joint written statement and have pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party Nos.2 & 3. Clause No.17 of the distributorship agreement clearly provides that the distributor shall act as principal and not as an agent and shall be responsible in respect of all contracts or engagements entered into by him with the customers for sale of LPG and/or matters therewith. The distributorship agreement entered into between the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 is on principle to principle basis. The opposite No.1 is supplying LPG refill to the complainant as per the availability and also on the basis of priority. The delivery record of the opposite party No.1 for Consumer No.2627 as on 1.6.2012 is given as under:-
Date of Booking | Date of Delivery | Status |
|---|
31/12/2012 | 10/01/12 | Delivered |
11/03/12 | 12/03/12 | Delivered |
16/4/2012 | Cancelled on 19/5/2012 with reason empty cylinder not available | Cancelled on 19/5/2012 with reason empty cylinder not available |
19/5/2012 | Pending | Refill voucher processed |
The opposite party No.1 has confirmed to them that she has never misbehaved and infringed the legal right of the complainant. Sh. Suresh Kumar the then Asstt. Manager (LPG-S)/Bathinda having official cell phone No.94172-17937 has now been transferred from Bathinda to Bikaner. The same cell phone number has been displayed on the notice board of M/s Narain Gas Agency. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have denied that the cell phone No.94172-17937 is the number of customer care.
4. The opposite party No.4 after appearing before this forum has filed its separate written statement and has pleaded that this complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not supplied any documents to the opposite party No.4 on which the complainant has relied upon. The opposite party No.4 further pleaded that no complaint has been made by the complainant or any other person in this regard against the opposite party No.1. No cause of action has ever arisen against the opposite party No.4. The complainant has not supplied any documents, in support of his version nor the same are mentioned anywhere. The opposite party No.4 is the supervisory authority but in the absence of any receipt of any type of complaint from the complainant or any other consumer, against the gas supply etc. the opposite party No.4 is unable to take any action.
5. The opposite party Nos.5 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this forum. Hence, ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.5.
6. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
7. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
8. The contention of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the Indian Oil Company since last more than 20 years and holding a gas connection bearing new No.2627 and old No.7301 having SV No.4179960000146 of the opposite party No.1 which is controlled and regulated under the supervision of the opposite party Nos.2 & 5 and Rupinder Kaur is the proprietor of the opposite party No.1. The complainant submitted that the opposite party No.1 is not supplying the gas regularly and sometimes gas is being supplied after months, such as supply was given on 29.1.2012 and on 12.3.2012 i.e. after the lapse of more than 42 days and booking was not done regularly. The opposite party No.1 issued instructions to the staff that booking should not be made prior to 25 days. The opposite party No.1 is not attending the telephonic calls of the consumers including his calls for booking of refill of the cylinders. He enquired about the status of the booking of the gas in the morning of 20th April, 2012 but no satisfactory reply was given despite three calls. He again contacted the opposite party No.1 on telephone on 23.4.2012 and inquired about the status of supply of the gas but Rupinder Kaur, proprietor of the opposite party No.1 started abusing him. In the evening of 23rd April, he approached the opposite party No.1 regarding supply of gas, the proprietor Rupinder Kaur misbehaved with him and threw away his consumer card and insulted him. The complainant being an advocate by profession having 22 years practice has to face insult in the presence of his colleagues who are junior to him. By throwing the consumer card the opposite party No.1 has not only insulted him but also the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as the consumer card is the property of the company. The complainant further submitted that he has approached the Area Sales Manager, Sh. Suresh Sharma on telephone but he cannot be contacted on cell No.94172-17937 as it turned to be the number of the customer care. This number has been displayed on the notice board of the opposite party No.1 to complaint him regarding any discrepancy. Due to non supply of the gas cylinder, the complainant has to arrange the gas cylinder by spending Rs.1000/- for cooking his food as such the opposite party No.1 is encouraging black marketing.
9. The opposite No.1 has submitted that she has never misbehaved with the complainant rather she is very humble and submissive. The supply of the gas is regularly given to the consumer as she is getting the supply from the depot and there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation regarding the booking is not regular is totally incorrect. The opposite parties have never given any instruction to the staff to book the gas cylinder after 25 days as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has represented himself as close friend of the judicial officer and openly boasted that most of the judges used to touch his feet. The complainant is getting the regular supply i.e. he requests for refilling on 31.12.2011 and the same was delivered on 10.1.2012, and booked on 11.3.2012, delivered on 12.3.2012 and again booking was made on 2.5.2012 and refilling was sent on 19.5.2012 to the house of the complainant but the complainant did not get the refilling and refused to sign the delivery voucher. The opposite party No.1 again sent the refilling on 1.6.2012 but the complainant did not accept the refilling instead started abusing and used filthy language.
10. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand submitted that their relation with the complainant is on principle to principle basis. The opposite Nos.2 and 3 has given the details of Consumer No.2627 as on 1.6.2012 which is reproduced as under:-
Date of Booking | Date of Delivery | Status |
|---|
31/12/2012 | 10/01/12 | Delivered |
11/03/12 | 12/03/12 | Delivered |
16/4/2012 | Cancelled on 19/5/2012 with reason empty cylinder not available | Cancelled on 19/5/2012 with reason empty cylinder not available |
19/5/2012 | Pending | Refill voucher processed |
The opposite party No.1 has confirmed to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 that she has never misbehaved and infringed the legal right of the complainant. Sh. Suresh Kumar the then Asstt. Manager (LPG-S)/Bathinda having official cell phone No.94172-17937 has now been transferred from Bathinda to Bikaner. The same cell phone number has been displayed on the notice board of M/s Narain Gas Agency. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have denied that the cell phone No.94172-17937 is the number of customer care.
11. The opposite party No.4 submitted that no complaint has been made by the complainant or any other person in this regard against the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.4 is the supervisory authority but in the absence of any receipt of any type of complaint, the opposite party No.4, from the complainant or any other consumer, against the gas supply etc. the opposite party No.4 is unable to take any action.
12. To support his version the complainant has placed on file Ex.C2 which shows that he is holding a card bearing No.2627 and the date of deliveries are mentioned as 31.12.2011, 29.1.2012 and 12.3.2012, meaning thereby till date only 3 times refill cylinder has been supplied to him.
13. The allegations of the complainant are that sometime the supply of the cylinders is given after months as such supply was given on 29.1.2012 and thereafter on 12.3.2012 i.e. after more than 42 days and the booking was not made regularly and the opposite parties have not been attending the telephone calls of the consumers including his calls. He has enquired about the status of the booking of the gas cylinder in the morning of 20th April, 2012 but no satisfactory reply was given despite three calls. On Saturday the complainant again contacted the opposite party No.1. In the morning of 23.4.212 , he again enquired about the status of supply of gas but Rupinder Kaur Proprietor started abusing him and in the evening of 23rd April, he approached the opposite party No.1 but Rupinder Kaur Proprietor of the opposite party No.1 misbehaved and threw away his consumer card and has insulted him in the full public view and in the presence of his colleagues. To support his version that he has been insulted in the presence of his colleagues, he has placed on file affidavit of Sh.Gurjeet Singh Advocate. He has deposed in his affidavit Ex.C4 that in the evening of 23rd of April the deponent approached the opposite party No.1 regarding supply of the gas for home delivery of cylinder of consumer No.786 of Atma Singh father of the deponent then there Sh.Jasvir Singh Advocate his neighbour was also present for taking supply of the gas but the opposite party No.1 and her official misbehaved and threw away his consumer card and have insulted him in the full public view in his presence.
14. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has denied all the allegation and has placed on file the affidavits of number of persons to prove that she has been supplying the gas cylinder to the different persons regularly and there is no complaint regarding her behaviour rather she is humble and submissive.
15. A minute perusal of the reply of the opposite party No.1 and affidavit of Rupinder Kaur Ex.R4 reveals that the complainant is getting supply of the refill gas cylinder as booked by him for refilling, he booked the refill cylinder on 31.12.2011 and delivered the refill on 10.1.2012, and booked on 11.3.2012, delivered on 12.3.2012 and again booking was made on 2.5.2012 and refill cylinder was sent on 19.5.2012 to his house but he did not get the refill cylinder and refused to sign the delivery voucher. The opposite party No.1 again sent the refilling on 1.6.2012 but again the complainant did not accept the refilling and abused the delivery man.
A further perusal of consumer card i.e. blue book of the complainant Ex.C2 shows that the refill cylinder was delivered on 31.12.2011 then on 29.1.2012 and then on 12.3.2012. The details mentioned by the opposite party No.1 in its reply as well as in affidavit are altogether different just to safe her skin and evade her liability as the consumer card/blue book does not contain the entries of 10.1.2012, 11.3.2012 and 2.5.2012. The opposite party No.1 has not placed on file any details, copy of booking register or any such document to show that she keeps the record of the consumers including the complainant rather has placed on file Ex.R14 dated 19.5.2012, on this a note has been given that 'he has refused to take the cylinder' and produced Ex.R16 with the note that 'the gate was closed' and the report on Ex.R16 has been done by Parkash and the report on Ex.R14 has been done by Amit. No affidavit of Parkash or Amit is placed on file to prove that who had refused to take the cylinder and who had closed the door as there is no evidence regarding the defence of the opposite party No.1 as such it cannot be believed and relied upon. The affidavit of the persons placed on file seems to be taken by the opposite party No.1 in her favour.
16. Now the question remains regarding the behaviour of Rupinder Kaur, the proprietor of the opposite party No.1. The complainant has levelled various allegations regarding her behaviour and Rupinder Kaur in turn has also levelled allegation of using filthy language etc against the complainant. This point is not be decided by this Forum as it needs elaborated oral as well documentary evidence, that is not possible in the summary procedure. Moreover, this Forum is also not competent to decide such type of matters where misbehaviour between the parties are concerned.
17. If for the arguments sake, it is believed that the dates mentioned in the reply of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 supplied by the opposite party No.1 are true, even than these details cannot be relied upon as best piece of evidence is the consumer card/ blue book of the complainant and the entries given by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 do not tally with it. The complainant submitted that he has to arrange the cylinder for Rs.1000/- to meet his necessity which is very high and invites black marketing. If the opposite party No.1 has been supplying the cylinder to the complainant regularly, he should not have spent Rs.1000/- for purchasing the cylinder from outside market. The support can be sought by the precedents law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in first appeal No.182 of 2010 in case titled Prem Sagar Singla Vs. Chairman Indian Oil Corporation, decided on 30.9.2012.
18. Thus in view of what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Thus this complaint is accepted against the opposite party No.1 with Rs.1000/- as cost and Rs.5000/- as compensation and dismissed qua the opposite party Nos.2 to 5. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the compensation within 45 days and give the delivery of the cylinder within 15-20 days of the booking to the complainant and as per availability. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
30-08-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
