: J U D G M E N T :
This is an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by Goutam Basak against two OPs namely Pradip Kumar Saha, proprietor of Bishnupriya Gas Service, Nakashipara and General Manager, West Bengal State Office, 2 No. Gariahat Rd, Kolkata. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant applied to the OP No. 1 for a new gas connection on 04.12.2008 being code No. 99026103 and booking No. 111403860000595. As the OP did not give connection for not purchasing of gas oven so the complainant sent legal notice on 25.08.2009 to the OP No. 1. After getting legal notice the OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 150/- as inspection charge. Subsequently the complainant wanted to deposit Rs. 150/- by cash on 24.10.09 but the OP No. 1 refused to accept the money. The complainant again sent Rs. 150/- by money order by the OP did not accept the same. Being refused by the OP 1, the complainant informed the matter to the OP No. 2 first and then District Magistrate, Nadia and the result was the complainant got the new gas connection on 08.03.2013 against new booking No. 111403860008320 dtd. 02.12.2012. As the OP 2 did not take any steps against OP No. 1 for the harassment of the complainant, the complainant finding no other alternative filed this case on 20.08.2013 praying for Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and other reliefs.
The complainant files the following documents:-
Annexure – 1: Complaint letter for new gas connection dtd. 10.07.2013
Annexure – 2: Letter to D.M., Nadia on 05.09.12 by complainant.
Annexure – 3: Complainant’s application for new gas connection dtd. 04.12.08
Annexure – 4: A letter from OP No. 1 for inspection charge.
Annexure – 5: Legal notice dtd. 25.08.09 by complainant’s lawyer
Annexure – 6: Letter from OP 1 to the complainant’s lawyer on 31.08.09
Annexure – 7: Application by the complainant for new gas connection on 31.08.09
Annexure – 8: Acknowledgement slip by the OP 1.
Annexure – 9: Registered letter by OP No. 1.
Annexure – 13: Gas Book of complainant
Annexure – 14: New gas connection registration slip on 02.12.12
No annexures No. 10, 11 and 12 have been filed by the complainant.
The OP No. 1, proprietor of the Bishnupriya Gas Service has contested the case by filing written version on 29.01.14 challenging the contentions of the complainant and denied all the allegations.
The sum and substance of the written version is as following:-
The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no cause of action. The complaint is misconceived, mala fide and groundless and also unsustainable in law. The complaint has no locus standi. The complainant applied to become a consumer to the OP No. 1 and he entertained the same and sent a letter to the complainant’s address registered with AD.
But the complainant did not deposit Rs. 150/- or did not submit any other documents as required by him. As the complainant did not contact with the OP 1 within valid period and did not comply with the IOC norms the complainant had to apply again against new booking No. for new gas connection. So the OP 1 has no deficiency in service. The complainant files this frivolous case only to suffer the OP 1. Hence, the complaint should be rejected with exemplary cost.
The OP No. 2 also has contested the case by filing a written version on 21.03.14. The sum and substance of the written version is almost the same. The OP No. 2 stated that the complainant is not considered a consumer whether he enlisted his name to the OP No. 1. As the OP 2 is not liable for delay to give new connection to the complainant so he is not liable to the consumers directly it is OP 1 who lies responsibility to inform the complainant. Thus, the complaint should be dismissed against OP 2 with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OPs?
- Point No. 2: Has the OP been guilty of unfair trade practice?
- Point No. 3: Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the brief note of argument filed by OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 and also complainant. Perused the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC page 397 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and another. It has been argued that OP No. 2 is not at all responsible in view of the above reported decision as OP No. 2 is in no way connected in the contract of the alleged incident.
We have meticulously gone through the evidence of PW 1 and OPW 1 along with the interrogatories and replies. We have also meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties. It has been pleaded by the complainant that he was mentally harassed. He has also pleaded that he was long been deprived of new gas connection but Ld. Advocates have argued that new connection has already been given with the intervention of the District Magistrate.
In view of the admission made by Ld. Advocate for the complainant and OP No. 1 that new connection has been given we are inclined to hold that no further relief should be given in the instant case. Thus we hold that the OP 1 could not be proved to be guilty of unfair trade practice. Hence, all the points are disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/88 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
