C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/06
COMPLAINANT : Babu Biswas,
S/o Gopal Chandra Biswas
Vill. Mithani Road, Palpara,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Pradip Kumar Saha (Proprietor)
M/S Bishnupriya Gas Service
Vill. Jagadanandapur,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th June, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of gas bearing consumer No. BP 9986 under the OP who is a dealer of Indane Gas. It is his further case that he usually takes gas cylinder from the OP, but on 11.11.10 he booked cylinder and the said cylinder was delivered to him on 21.11.10. Thereafter, his wife became ill and for the purpose of family works he required another gas cylinder. As his gas cylinder became empty on 27.11.10, so on 28.11.10 he went to the OP to book a new gas cylinder at which the OP declined and intimated him that since the date of delivery within 21 days no booking could be taken by him. Due to non-supply of gas cylinder by the OP as per his demand, he had to suffer a lot. So having no other alternative he has filed this case for the deficiency in service caused by the OP in not taking of the gas cylinder booking from him and also has prayed for reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission also that this complainant is a consumer under him with regard to cooking gas and as per booking he all along supplied gas cylinder to the complainant in time. From the petition of complaint it is available that the complainant got the gas cylinder on 21.11.10 which was exhausted on 27.11.10, i.e., within 7 days which is not a practical possibility. Besides this, gas cylinder is a subsidy product of Govt. of India. So it cannot be used as per one’s own will. Besides this it is not at all true that the OP did not take booking on 28.11.10 from the complainant and he also submits that on very date the complainant did not at all go to his shop-room to book any gas cylinder. The complainant motivatedly sent a letter to I.O.C. in order to harass him and also to file this case without having any cogent ground. So the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1 : Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2 : Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with oral and documentary evidences filed by the parties it is available on record that this complainant is a consumer of Indane Gas under the OP having consumer No. BP 9986. It is the specific case of the complainant that he booked a gas cylinder from the OP on 11.11.10 which was delivered on 21.11.10, but due to illness of his wife and family activities he required another gas cylinder for which he went to the shop-room of the OP on 28.11.10 to book another gas cylinder of which the OP replied that no gas cylinder could be booked within 21 days since the date of last delivery of the gas cylinder. On the selfsame date i.e., on 28.11.10 the complainant sent a complaint to the Sr. Area Manager, I.O.C. stating his grievances. I.O.C. did not take any step in this matter. On the other hand OP has categorically denied that on that very date the complainant did not visit his office to book a gas cylinder. So no question of refusal on his part does arise. On the side of the complainant he himself has filed examination-in-chief as PW-1 and another Krishna Biswas as PW-2. That Krishna Biswas has stated in his evidence that at that time on 28.11.10 he was present in the shop-room of the OP when the complainant went there in order to book a gas cylinder at which the OP declined. But in the petition of complaint no where it is stated that said Krishna Biswas was present on the alleged time of booking the gas cylinder by the complainant. Nor it is stated by Krishna Biswas why he went to the gas office of the OP at that time. The complainant has not disclosed in the petition of complaint how many members reside at his family, nor it is disclosed from which type of ailment his wife was suffering. He has merely stated that his wife was ill and nothing more. But the fact is that he received the gas cylinder on 21.11.10 and he went to the shop-room of the OP on 28.11.10 for booking a gas cylinder. No where it is disclosed on which purpose a gas cylinder was exhausted within a period of only 7 days. It is the normal presumption that a family consists of even 5 members does not require a gas cylinder to be exhausted within a short period of 7 days. OP has filed a copy of notice which is displayed at his shop-room showing that there is no time limit for taking booking of a gas cylinder. This is the official direction of the I.O.C. also. From the ‘Annexure – 3’ filed by the OP No. 1 we find that the complainant previously booked gas on 11.11.10, 12.10.10, 12.09.10, 20.08.10, 11.07.10, 19.06.10, 21.05.10, 19.04.10, 17.03.10 and 22.02.10. So this Annexure clearly shows that the complainant generally uses a gas cylinder in or about a month, so it is his duty to bring before this Forum why his cylinder was exhausted within a period of 7 days since the date of receipt of the gas cylinder on 21.11.10. From the document filed by the OP it is available that after the disputed time the complainant booked gas on 05.12.10, 05.01.11, 18.02.11, 08.04.11 and 14.05.11 and those gas cylinders were delivered to him on 11.12.10, 22.01.11, 01.03.11, 12.04.11 and 17.05.11 respectively. So from this document, we find that the OP all along supplied gas to this complainant within a reasonable time and the complainant’s cylinder was exhausted almost in a month.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to establish his case as it is not proved that he actually needed a gas cylinder for the ailment of his wife nor it is proved that he was refused by the OP in order to book a gas cylinder on 28.11.10 as alleged by him. We do also hold that as the complainant has not become able to prove deficiency in service by the OP, so he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/06 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
