C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/16
COMPLAINANT : Ganendra Nath Basak,
S/o Badal Basak
Vill. Jugpur, Dhaka Colony, P.O. Jugpur,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Pradip Kumar Saha (Prop)
Bishnupriya Gas Service,
Vill. Jagadanandapur, P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2) General Manager,
West Bengal State Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Indian Oil Bhaban,
2 No. Gariahat (South)
Kolkata - 700068
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 24th June, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Ganendra Nath Basak has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Proprietor of Bishnupriya Gas Service, OP No. 1 (Pradip Kumar Saha) and OP No. 2 General Manager, West Bengal State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2. He booked gas cylinder on 05.09.12 to 16.10.12 and 01.12.12 and gas cylinder was supplied to him on 10.09.12, 18.10.12 and 04.12.12.
According to Govt. of India decision the complainant will get three cylinders with subsidies available between 14.09.12 and 31.03.13. On 02.11.13 the complainant went to OP No. 1 at about 11 O’ clock. The OP No. 1 had stated that three cylinders had already been taken to by the complainant. And, the complainant was compelled to book gas cylinder without subsidy. The cash memo was not given. The mater was reported to the higher authorities on 02.10.13. Annexure – 1 is the letter addressed to the higher authorities, annexure-2 is the card of the consumer, annexure -3 is the refill receipt, annexure – 4 is the tax invoice or refill voucher.
As the complainant did not get any relief by writing letters, he approached the Forum with a prayer for one cylinder with subsidy along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cylinders and cost of the suit.
In the written version, filed on 30.04.12 all the allegations have been denied. It has been specifically stated in the statement of the complainant in para-5 that he already took booking for delivery of the gas cylinder.
POINTS FOR DECESION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Has the OP No. 1 got any deficiency in service?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
Ganendra Nath Basak has filed affidavit evidence on 25.06.13 and PW-2, Jagannath Ghosh has filed the same on 08.10.13. On 05.02.14 annexures filed. Pradip Kumar Saha filed affidavit evidence being OP No 1 denying the merit of the complainant. We have meticulously gone through the written argument filed by both parties. OP filed written argument on 08.05.14 and the complainant filed written argument on 16.06.14.
The burden of proof in establishing the case is upon the complainant and that the complainant has successfully proved that he is a consumer under the OPs on the basis of annexures. The complainant has failed to produce any document showing mandatory drawal of three cylinders between 14.09.12 and 31.03.13.
The government order is not forthcoming. In order to determine the deficiency in service, the G.O. is very important. Without G.O. it is not be possible to come into conclusion regarding compulsory drawing of cylinder and direction thereon by the Govt. of India.
Annexure – 1 to 4 is silent of the G.O.
The affidavit evidence between the parties are oath vs. oath. Hence, we are compelled to hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case of deficiency in service by the OPs. Hence, no relief will flow.
It is therefore,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/2013/16 be and the same is dismissed. No cost.
