C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2013/32

COMPLAINANT                  :           Gour Chandra Sarkar,

                                    S/o Late Chandra Nath Sarkar,

                                    Vill + P.O. Patikabari,

                                    P.S. Nakashipara,

                                    Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

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

                                    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 Bhavan, 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                         :  30^th APRIL, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant, Gour Chandra Sarkar a resident of Vill & P.O. Patikapari, P.S. Nakashipra, Dist. Nadia.  He filed a complaint against Pradip Kumar Saha, Proprietor of Bishnupriya Gas Service and General Manager, (C-S) West Bengal Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  The main grievance of the complainant as per the complaint is as below:-

The complainant is a consumer having consumer No. BP 20146.  He booked a cylinder on 12.02.13, but neither OP No. 1 nor OP No. 2 arranged for supply of gas cylinder to him.  Claimant is suffering a lot for nonsupply of gas cylinder.  The nursing of complainant’s wife due to non supply of gas cylinder suffers hence, the complainant prays for supply of gas cylinder and compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with cost of the suit. 

The opposite parties filed a written version challenging the contention of the claimant.  OP No. 1 has filed a written version on 08.01.14 and 19.12.13.  The sum and substance of the written objection may be put as below:-

It is not a fact that the OP No. 1 is not supplying gas cylinder intentionally to the complainant.  It has been admitted that on 12.02.13 the complainant booked a gas cylinder and it was sent for delivery, but as the house of the complainant under lock and key so delivery could not be given after reserving the cylinder till 17.03.13 for the complainant the booking was cancelled.  The complainant did not book any gas cylinder after 12.02.13.   He was asked to file passport size photograph subscription voucher, pan card, ration card, passport, electric bill etc. but he did not do so. 

The case of the complainant should be dismissed for laches on his part, it is pleaded. 

Order No. 17 dtd. 30.08.13 goes to show that rectification was not done by the complainant as per order of this Forum.  The complainant did not reapply for gas cylinder according to rules.  Order No. 20, dtd. 27.11.13 of the subscription also goes against the complainant.

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. Point No. 3:   Is the complainant entitled to get a relief as prayed for?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            We have carefully perused the documents on records pleadings of the parties and the written arguments filed by all the parties.  We have also gone through the interrogatories and the reply of PW-1, 2 and OPW 1.

            We have seen the gas book, its Xerox copy filed by the complainant.  It is admitted position for the complainant that he is the consumer under the OPs.

            Regarding deficiency in service, we hold that neither OP No. 1 nor OP No. 2 was deficient in service because the cylinder was kept reserved for one month as the same could not be delivered at the house of the complainant which was under lock and key at the relevant time of delivery.   Due to noncooperation on the part of the complainant the connection could not be reactivated vide order No. 17, 20 of this Forum.    The complainant failed to comply the Forum’s order. The activation as per IOC norms have not done by the complainant.  Hence, all the points are disposed of with the observation that the OPs have no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2013/32 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.