C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/66
COMPLAINANT : Haran Ghosh
S/o Ranjan Ghosh
Vill. + P.O. Patuadanga,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Pradip Kumar Saha (Proprietor)
Bishnupriya Gas Service (Indane Gas)
Vill. Jagadanandapur, P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2) Sr. Area Manager,
(Kolkata Area Office)
34A, Nirmal Chandra Street,
(opposite Hind Cinema)
Kolkata - 700013
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th January, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer with regard to gas under the OP No. 1 being No. BP 17875. It is his further case that on 09.06.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book gas cylinder at which the OP declined on the plea that the booking would be taken through his representative of Birpur. This complainant searched for that person at Birpur, but his whereabouts were not available as he did not reside at his residence regularly. So he could not book the gas cylinder through him and requested the OP No. 1 for booking his gas, but to no effect. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1 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 all the statements made by the complainant in his petition of complaint are false and fabricated. He specifically submits that this complainant never went to his shop-room for booking gas cylinder on the alleged date. So no question of refusal by him does arise. He never asked him to book gas through the alleged agent of Birpur, as he had no agent at that place. Besides this, as per I.O.C. rule the complainant is entitled to make booking over telephone or e-mail also and this system is already displayed on the notice board of his office. So no question of denial regarding booking of gas by him does arise. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
OP No. 2 has not appeared in this case after receipt of notice and has not filed any written version also.
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 complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also oral evidences laid by both sides, it is available on record that admittedly this complainant is a consumer with regard to gas under the OP No. 1 having connection No. BP 17875. It is his specific allegation in this case that on 09.06.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 when he was refused on the plea that the booking would be done through the agent of the OP No. 1 who resided at Birpur. In the petition of complaint the complainant has not disclosed the name of the alleged representative / agent of the OP No. 1. In the present system it is the complaint, who can book gas through telephone or e-mail also. Admittedly there is no eye witness in this incident regarding refusal of booking gas by the OP No. 1. The PW-2 has stated in his deposition that he heard from the PW-1 that on 09.06.11 he went to the show-room of the OP No. 1 in order to book gas, but he was refused by the OP No. 1 on the plea that this booking would be done through his agent. Even he has stated in his evidence that he heard from public that at Birpur, the OP No. 1 had one agent and from the complainant he has learnt that the agent was not available at his residence. His evidence carries no merit in this case, as he has no personal knowledge regarding booking gas by the complainant. After this incident the complainant never met the OP No. 1 to book gas for the next time or through telephone / e-mail. From the evidence of the PW 1 & 2 it is available that none of them has become able to disclose the name of the alleged agent of the OP No. 1 residing at Birpur though both of them are the residents of Birpur area. The complainant has categorically stated in his petition of complaint that the representative or the agent of the OP No. 1 who resides at Birpur is not always available at his residence. But he has failed to disclose even the name of that agent.
Therefore, after hearing the arguments on both sides and considering the facts of this case along with the oral and documentary evidences on record we find that the complainant has not become able to prove his allegation regarding refusal of booking gas by the OP No. 1. As the complainant hast not become able to prove his case, so he has not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/66 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
