View 579 Cases Against Indian Oil
Bhupesh Kumar Yadav filed a consumer case on 11 Mar 2020 against M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/94/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Mar 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC.94/2011 Dated:
In the matter of:
Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Yadav,
52/59 A, Street No.18,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi-110005.
..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Indane Area Office, Delhi,
2nd Floor, World Trade Centre,
Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi-01.
Shop No.123, Janta Market,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi.
...OPPOSITE PARTIES.
NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
O R D E R
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of OP vide LPG Gas Connection No.K-2653. OP-2 is the dealer and OP-1 has controlled on its dealer for the last so many months. OP-2 did not supply the gas/cylinder to the complainant despite making numerous calls to it. On 17.1.2011 at 14.58 p.m., the complainant booked the cylinder with OP-2 and on inquiry on 18.1.2011, it was found that no booking was made against LPG connection in question. The complainant again approached the official of OP-2 and requested to deliver the cylinder but the lady operator show her inability by stating that there was no booking against connection in question. The complainat sent various emails to OP-1 regarding the deficiency in services by OP-2 but all in vain, complainant therefore approach this Forum for redressal of her grievance.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-2 as such it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte vide order dt. 18.11.2011 by our predecessor bench.
3. Complaint has been contested by OP-1. It is stated that the OP-2 distributor is responsible for delivery/supply and distribution of the cyclinder. As per the history card of the complainant, there is no booking of complainant on TOMO System in the month of January 2011. He had booked only one refilled in January 2011 that too manually only on 21.1.2011 against which the refill was supplied to him on 29.1.2011, because of the prevailing backlog at OP-2. There had been three instance, when refill was supplied to the complainant about 8 days after the booking due to prevailing backlog at OP-2, hence, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberately, and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.
4. The Complainant and OP-2 have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
5. We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.
6. Perusal of the file shows that the OP-1 in its reply at Para-10 itself admitted that there has been three instances when refill was supplied to the complainant after 8 days of the booking, the reason mentioned by OP-1 is the backlog prevailing with OP-2. OP-1 failed to justify as to what was reason behind the backlog prevailing with OP-2, hence, we are of the opinion that delay in delivery of cylinder by OP-2 amounts to deficiency in services.
7. We, therefore, hold the OP-2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:
i) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/-as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain which will also include the cost of litigation.
A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum on 11/03/2020.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.