C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2013/15        

COMPLAINANT                  :           Subrata Chakraborty,

                                                         S/o Late Anil Kumar Chakraborty,

                                    Vill. 1 No. Anchal Panchayat Para,

P.O. Bethuadahari,

                                                         P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia          

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1)  Pradip Kumar Saha (Prop)

                                                         Bishnupriya Gas Service,

                                                         Vill. Jagadanandapur, P.O. Bethuadahari,

                                                         P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia       

                                       2)      General Manager (C.S.)

                                    West Bengal State Office,

                                    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

                                    Indian Oil Bhaban,

                                    2 No. Gariahat Road (South)

                                    Kolkata - 700068

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

                 : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :    24^th 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, Subrata Chakraborty 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 OPs having BP No. 4397.  He booked for gas cylinders on 08.09.12, 27.09.12, 17.11.12 and gas cylinders were supplied on 13.09.12, 02.10.12 and 18.11.12 respectively.  According to decision of the Govt. of India a non subsidized cylinder are to be taken between 14.09.12 to 31.03.13 but only two cylinders were purchased with subsidy by the complainant and so he was entitled to get one more subsidized cylinder on 26.11.12.   At about 11 O’ clock, the complainant went to the OP No. 1 but no subsidized gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant as required by order the Govt. of India.  Three documents have been filed by the complainant, one is the consumer card, 2^nd one is the refill receipt and the 3^rd one is  letter of complaint sent to different higher officials.  The complainant went to the OP for booking on 13.09.12.  The OP No. 1 wrote on 15.09.12 to the yellow card and threatened the complainant with police power and compelled him to book gas cylinder without subsidy.  Hence, the complainant is for one cylinder with subsidy, compensation and Rs. 10,000/- and for mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- along with cost of the suit.

OP No. 2 filed written version challenging contentions of the complaint.  On 29.08.13 Ombika Prakash Mishra, the Law Officer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has signed the affidavit.  Affidavit evidence was filed by Parimal Chakraborty and Swapan Ghosh as PW-1 and PW-2.  Interrogatories were filed on 18^th December, 2013 and 8^th Jan,14 and reply was filed on 8^th Jan, 2014.  Pradip Kumar Saha, the OP No. 1 has filed affidavit evidence on 29.01.14.  Indane Distributor filed consumer details.  I.O.C. Ltd’s Consumer Details of Subrata Chakraborty has been filed in order to show the giving of the delivery and the gas cylinder.

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Has the OP No. 1 got any deficiency in service?
3. 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.

            We have meticulously gone through the written arguments filed by both parties along with the documents placed on record by them.  It is clear from the documents and the affidavit that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs.  Now the question is whether the complainant could establish that the case of deficiency in service.  The order for drawal of subsidized cylinders within a specified period is to be considered, but the government order has not been filed by the complainant.  Thus, it is not clear within which time limit the cylinder with subsidy has to be drawn.  Hence, the evidence regarding deficiency in service is insufficient rather nil. 

            The burden of proof in establishing the case is upon the complainant 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 G.O. has not been filed

In order to determine the deficiency in service, the G.O. is very important. Without G.O. it is not be possible to come to conclusion regarding compulsory drawing of cylinder and direction thereon by the Govt. of India.

            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/2013/15 be and the same is dismissed.   No cost.