: J U D G M E N T :
This is an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by Sulekha Ghosh 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 08.04.12 being booking No. 11140386 0006593. As the OP did not give connection so she complained to the OP No. 1 on 23.02.13. But the OP did not give her new gas connection. Subsequently the complainant lodged a complaint to the Nakashipara P.S. on 01.03.13. Accordingly the said P.S. asked the complainant to go the office of the OP No. 1, but the OP 1 misbehaved her. So the complainant again lodged a G.D. being No. 1180, on 19.03.13. Thereafter, the complainant was called for supply some documents like receipt of the house lease agreement etc. by the OP 1. By submitting the document the complainant got the new gas connection on 07.04.13. The complainant states that at the time of getting new connection she was obliged to purchase Sulekha Box at Rs. 200/-, which was not mandatory to buy. About this incident, the complainant informed all the OPs, but to no effect. Hence, the complaint. The complainant prays for return of the price of Sulekha Box and compensation for harassment and cost of the suit.
The complainant files the following documents:-
Annexure – 1: Application for new gas connection dtd. 08.04.12
Annexure – 2: Receipt of that application dtd. 08.04.12
Annexure – 3: Complainant’s complaint to the P.S. on 01.03.13
Annexure – 4: G.D. filed by the complainant dtd. 13.03.13
Annexure – 5: Complaint to the P.S. on 07.04.13
Annexure – 6: Application to the OP No. 1 by the complainant on 20.03.13
Annexure – 7: Registered Post from OP No. 1
Annexure – 8: New gas connection book
Annexure – 9: Vouchar of the new gas connection
Annexure – 10: Cash Memo of the new gas connection
Annexure – 11: House lease agreement of the complainant.
The OP No. 1, proprietor of the Bishnupriya Gas Service has contested the case by filing written version on 08.01.14 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 letter returned back to the OP and the OP No. 1 again sent a reminder letter to the complainant. Thereafter receiving the same the complainant contacted with OP No. 1 and the OP 1 gave her new gas connection. The OP 1 also states that the complainant purchased the equipments willfully. 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 her name to the OP No. 1 and he also added that purchase of Suraksha Box is not mandatory by the consumers. The OPs have no specific rule to purchase the said box at the time of taking new connection. The consumers are required to pay the security deposit for the gas cylinder and pressure regulator and purchase of pipe is mandatory. So the OP 2 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 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.
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.
It has been argued by Ld. Advocate for the complainant that a Sulekha Box valued at Rs. 200/- was push-sold to the complainant by the OP No. 1. There is no corroboration of push-sale. The amount of Sulekha Box is Rs. 200/-. We are not inclined to believe the story of push-sale of Sulekha Box.
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 prove to be guilty of unfair trade practice. Hence, all the points are disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/87 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
