IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 10th day of January,2018.
C.C.Case No. 47 of 2015
Bansidhar Nayak ,
At. Naya patana, P.O. Chhatia
P.S.Badachana , Dist.Jajpur. …… ……....Complainant . .
(Versus)
1.Nigam Bharat Gas,Gramin Vitarak, At/P.O. Chhatia, Dist. Jajpur.
2. Regional Manager, BPCL ,Alok Bharati Building, Saheed Nagar
Bhubaneswar, Dist . Khurda. …………………..Opp.Parties .
For the Complainant: Self.
For the Opp.Parties No.1 Sri P.K. Panda, Advocate.
For the Opp.Parties No.2 Sri A.K.Pani, Advocate.
Date of order: 10.01.2018
MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER .
The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.P alleging deficiency in service due to non supply of booking cylinder in time .
The facts as stated by the petitioner in the complain petition shortly are that the petitioner being an inhabitant of chhatia as well as LPG customer bearing No.16 under the O.Ps booked a cylinder on 03.02.15 in the counter of O.P.no.1 vide booking No. 153712. Thereafter the petitioner visited to the go down of op.no.1 on 04.02.15 and 05.02.15 to receive the riffle cylinder but the O.P.no.1 replied the petitioner that cylinder is out of stock .Thereafter on 06.02.15 due to non supply of riffle cylinder by the o.p.no.1 in time the petitioner made his grievance before O.P.no.2 through e.mail dt.05.02.15 and on dt. 06.02.15 . The O.P.no.2 informed the petitioner through SMS that the complaint has been sought out and take your riffle cylinder immediately. Further as per advice of O.P.no..2 the petitioner visited the go down of O.P.no.1 on 07.02.15 but the O.P.no.1` refused to deliver the cylinder on the plea of non availability of cylinder .Thereafter the petitioner informed the O.P.no.2 and again O.P.no.2 replied through SMS that the complain has been sought out . Lastly on dt.06.03.15 the petitioner on his own expenditure meet with the Sr. Managr Indian oil corporation and on that day Mr.Satish Kumar ,Territory Manager LPG (BPCL) was informed about the allegation of the petitioner . Lastly on dt.07.03.15 the O.P.no1 delivered the riffle cylinder to the petitioner as well as misbehaved with him . Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service due to belated supply of riffle cylinder by O.P.no.1 and 2 as well as prayed compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the litigation. and prayed to direct the O.Ps not commit such type of mistake in future .
There are 2 nos. of O.Ps is the present dispute who after appearance filed their written version .
In the written version the O.P.no.1 has denied all the allegations .As per written version the O.P.no.1 not only questioned about the maintainability of complaint petition but also has taken the stand that the customer is a beneficiary of Govt of India taking the subsidy against the riffle cylinder hence the customer can not raise any complain before this Fora . It is false to say that the O.P.no.1 did not deliver on 03.02.15 as the cylinder as alleged by the petitioner rather the petitioner has not come to take his riffle cylinder . The unsuccessful applicant of the locality being shrewed litigant have formed an anti social litigant group in the village to harass the O.P.no.1 and the petitioner is the main agent to file complain objection and cases at different level .The petitioner also lodged false complain against the O.P.no.1 before authorities from A to Z and failed every where . The petitioner being failed had also filed Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court .The collector, jajpur found the allegation are false and baseless and the O.P.no.1 conducting business legally . The petitioner is habitual litigant however he has been encouraged by the order of C.C.No.99/15 as the petitioner could not file his documents before this Fora as he was engaged to file this case at Hon’ble Supreme Court for his agency.
That the petitioner booked his order dt.03.02.15 and conformed on the same but he did not turn to receive his gas cylinder nor deposited his empty gas cylinder on the same day . In Gramin Vitarak system there is no provision for door delivery . The customer has to come physically to receive the same . The petitioner without coming on 4.2.15 lodged complain to customer care and receiving the information on 05.2.15 E-Mail expressing his regret in courtesy and asked to come on 6.2.15 to receive the gas but without coming to O.P’s counter on 06.2.15 played his litigation game to create this complaint only . That the petitioner went to Bhubaneswar to meet Indian oil authority on 06.3.15, for the reason is best known to him .so it clearly proves that there is conspiracy to lodge complain against O.P.no.1 and BPCL.
In view of the above circumstances and facts the petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed with cost
In the written version of O.P.no.2 has taken the following defence:
- The O.P.no.2 is the Govt. of India Enterprises as well as a public Sector undertaking in corporated and registered under the provision of the Indian companies Act , under the aegis of Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India . The O.P. no.2 is a Govt. company within the meaning of section- 617 of the companies Act. 1956 and inter alia carrying on the business of production, refining ,manufacturing ,distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum products such as motor Spirit (petrol) High speed Diesel, superior kerosene oil and liquefied petroleum has which are categorized as essential commodities . For the larger interest of the general public and for the smooth operation of his business the O.P.no.2 has appointed the distribution and dealers through out the country. Accordingly the O.P no.2 has appointed O.P no.1 as dealer on the strength of agreement as ‘ principal to principal basis “ and not as “principal to Agent “ . As regards the allegation of the petitioner though the O.P no.2 is unaware about the affairs regarding frequent visit to O.P no.1 for obtaining the cylinder on the other hand the O.P no.2 after receipt the complainant through E.mail from the petitioner, the O.P no.2 immediately had informed the O.P no.1 to consider the case as per norms. Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed against O.P no.2 since the petitioner has neither made any grievance against O.P no.2 nor the O.P no.2 is responsible for the alleged grievance of the petitioner
Now the point for determination of the present dispute is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. so far as the grievance of the petitioner for supplying cylinder at belated period.
1 it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has booked the cylinder on 03.2.15 and after expiry of 33 days the O.P.no.1 delivered the gas cylinder to the petitioner ;
2 It is also the fact that the O.P.no.1 intimated the petitioner on dt.04.2.15 and 05.2.15 through message to take gas cylinder . In such circumstances, if the petitioner did turned up to take the riffle cylinder then the booking could have been cancelled but without doing so under what circumstances the O.P.no.1 has kept pending the booking till 07.03.15.
3.It is also not under stood under what circumstances the riffle cylinder was delivered after expiry of 33 days.
4.The O.P.no.1 took the stand in the written version that the petitioner has interest in litigation and filed many cases in various forum but the O.P.no.1 has not produced a single scrap of paper as evidence to this effect .
5.It is also a fact that earlier in the year of 2013 the petitioner filed a C.C.Case No.99/13 against the present O.P for non delivery of riffle cylinder in time .
6.It is also not understood under what circumstances , the O.P.no.1 did not file the stock register and booking register before this Fora for proper adjudication of the present dispute . Accordingly we are constrained to hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of o.p1 for non delivery of riffle cylinder in time. As regard the liability of O.P.no.2 , we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service against O.P.no 2 , because the op.2 carrying its business principal to principal basis with O.P.no.1 which is also supported by Hon’ble N.C reported in 2009(1)CPR-393 –N.C
Hence this order
In the net result the dispute is allowed against O.P.no.1 and dismissed against o.p.2 . The o.p.no. 1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000 /- (ten thousand ) as compensation and cost of litigation which will be paid to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order. The o.p.1 also directed not to committee such type of mistake in future . The O.P.no. 2 is advised to look into the matter for avoiding future complicacy and take steps against O.P.No.1 in such type of unfair trade practice.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of January,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
