CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th August, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 06/07/2013
CC /111/2013
Chandrika,
W/o.Narayanan, : Complainant
Karippali, Karambathur P.O
Ottapalam, Palakkad.
(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)
Vs
1. M/s.Indane Rep by
A.N.Jha, Executive Director (LPG) : Opposite parties
Indian Oil Bhavan,
G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg,
Bandra east, Mumbai.
(By Adv.V.K.Haridas)
2. M/s. Sree Narayana Indian Services,,
IV/168 Anugraha, Thekkemuri,
Pattambi, Palakkad Rep.by Manager
(By Adv.V.K.Haridas)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.18223. The 2nd opposite party supplied domestic LP Gas to the complainant on 04/01/2013. The delivery boy of the opposite party kept the said cylinder in the residence of the complainant and took away the empty replacing cylinder. Complainant paid the amount as per the bill for the supply of the said cylinder. The complainant, when took the said cylinder for domestic use, found that the cylinder is empty and she could feel that the weight of the cylinder, is just that of an empty cylinder. The cylinder was sealed and not yet open. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party complaining about the incident and for replacing the defective gas cylinder, the 2nd opposite party insulted the complainant and her husband and told them that they are not ready to make any replacement. The complainant alleges that the above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. The husband of the complainant sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party on 13/04/2013. The 2nd opposite party sent a reply stating false allegations. The husband of the complainant also sent a letter to the Ottapalam Taluk Supply Office for the alleged cause. Opposite parties have neither replaced the cylinder nor rented proper service. Hence the complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with cost of this proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. 1st opposite party was absent inspiteof accepting the notice. Hence they were called and set exparte. 2nd opposite party filed version denying the allegations in the complaint. The cylinder is supplied by the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party in only supplying it to the customers. Eventhough the cylinder was supplied on 4/1/2013, complainant booked the next cylinder on 05/02/2013; which was taken for delivery on 25/03/2013 but was returned since there was no empty cylinder. On 05/04/2013 the complainant reported that the cylinder is empty and next cylinder was delivered on 11/04/2013 itself. The delivery of the next cylinders could not be effected on 18/05/2013 and 19/05/2013 due to the reason that there was no empty cylinder. The intimation of the leakage of the cylinder supplied on 04/01/2013 was only by a notice on 13/04/2013 after two days of receiving the second cylinder. 2nd opposite party further submits that the cylinder which was delivered on 29/10/2012 was not replaced till 11/04/2013 is quite unbelievable. Hence the allegation that cylinder supplied on 04/01/2013 was empty could not be believed. Complainant produced the gas cylinder before the Forum and also filed application for appointment of an Adv.Commissioner to inspect the disputed cylinder. Application was allowed and an Adv.Commissioner was appointed to examine and to report in accordance with the work memo supplied by the parties. Commission has filed the report to examination. Opposite parties filed objection to the Commissioner’s report.
The complainant filed an application to receive the power of attorney. Power of attorney holder filed chief affidavits. 2nd opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine complainant. Application was allowed and Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1-A3 was marked from the part of the complainant. Commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. 2nd opposite party also filed chief affidavits along with documents. Ext.B1 and B2 was marked on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant filed application seeking permission to cross examine the 2nd opposite party. Application was allowed and 2nd opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUE No. 1
We have perused documents from both sides. It is revealed from Ext.A1 that the complainant has intimated 2nd opposite party that the cylinder was empty when taken for use. But 2nd opposite party in his reply Ext.A3 has disowned his liability. The Commissioner appointed from the Forum had examined the disputed cylinder and had reported that the total weight of the cylinder was 16kg and 500gm. He had also noticed that the details embossed on the cylinder as gross weight is mentioned that as 30.30 kg. Whereas during inspection the Commissioner had found it to be 16.5kg. From the above details it can be inferred that the remaining weight of gas (LPG) inside the cylinder might have leaked. The approximate weight of the LPG inside the cylinder will be 30.3 - 16.5 i.e. 13.8. The Commissioner has also reported that the safety seal of the gas cylinder is intact and not at all opened. Whereas in the opening valve portion on the upper side of gas cylinder wherein regulator is to be fixed, the entire valve gas outlet is completely damaged due to rust. Fixing the regulator and removing of it may even cause and expose to fire hazardous . From the above observations of the Commissioner it is clear that the cylinder supplied by the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party was empty. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, instead of replacing the cylinder, he has disowned his liability through Ext.A3. From the above conduct of the opposite parties we are of the view that both the opposite parties had committed gross deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct both the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the gas cylinder with a new fully filled gas cylinder of good quality and pay of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony inconvenience and financial loss suffered by the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. The complaint is allowed in part as above. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the compensation amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 -Notice with postal receipt dtd.13/04/2013sent by the complainant’s husband to 2nd OP (Photocopy)
Ext.A2 - Notice with postal receipts dtd.13/04/2013 by the complainant’s husband to Taluk Supply Officer, Ottapalam. (Photocopy)
Ext.A3 – Reply notice of Sree Narayana Indane Services dtd.17/04/2013 (original)
Ext.A4-Power of attorney dtd.10/07/2014
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Narayanan.K
Ext.C1- Commission Report
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-Customer History Card dtd.27/07/2013 in the name of complainant issued by 2nd OP
Ext.B2- Blank Cash Memo Receipt of 2nd OP
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1-A.Narayanan
Cost Allowed
Rs.5000/- as cost.
