C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/17
COMPLAINANT : Parimal Chakraborty,
S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chakraborty,
Vill. 6 No. Ramesharpalli, Sahapara,
Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia
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 : 29th APRIL, 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, Parimal Chakraborty is a resident of 6 No. Ramesharpalli, Sahapara, Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia. He purchased a gas cylinder from the OP No 1 on 07.09.12, 05.10.12, 21.11.12, so he was entitled to get subsidy prior to 31.03.13 and after 14.09.12, i.e., he was entitled to get subsidy money on three cylinders out of which the complainant purchased two cylinders with subsidy. From one cylinder no subsidy was received.
The complainant has prayed for subsidy money from one cylinder and Rs.10,000/- for compensation for harassment along with litigation cost.
The OP filed written version on 10.07.2013 challenging the maintainability of the case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2. The complaint is barred by principle of estopple, waiver and acquiescence.
The complainant refilled booking on 07.09.12 which was delivered by 14.09.12. The booking of 03.10.12 was delivered on 06.10.12 again booking of 20.11.12 was delivered on 22.11.12 respectively. The complainant is not entitled to get any subsidized rate for the year ending 31.03.2013.
The OPs are protected by the decision reported in 1994 (1) SCC 397 (Indian Oil Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council Kerala and Ors. Hence the case should be dismissed without cost.
OPW – 2, Pradip Kumar Saha filed affidavit almost in the same line of OP No.1.
POINTS FOR DECESION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- 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.
Written version was filed on 10.07.13 challenging the case of the complainant. The prayer for dismissal have made under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. We have gone through written version.
It is admitted position that the complainant is the consumer under the OP No.1 and he is the customer under Bishnupriya Gas Service bearing consumer No. BP12064.
We have meticulously gone through the documents filed by both parties including the card of the IOC showing the date of delivery and date of booking of the receipts. We also find that refill voucher / cash memo bill was also given.
Customer cylinder card is also in the record. No affidavit was sworn by the complainant to substantiate its case.
The complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs due to lack of evidence. Hence, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/17 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment pbe delivered to the parties free of cost.
