C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/61
COMPLAINANT : Sandhya Saha
W/o Late Bakul Saha
Vill. Collegepara,
P.O. 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) Area Manager,
India Oil Corporation Ltd.
Kolkata Area Office (3rd Floor)
34A, Nirmal Chandra Street,
Kolkata – 13
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 25th October, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer under the OP No. 1 having consumer No. BP 5028. It is her further case that on 01.06.11 she went to the office of the OP No. 1 for booking a gas cylinder at which the OP declined without showing any reason. On the selfsame date, she intimated this to the OP No. 2 by sending a letter. In spite of that, no step was taken by the OP No. 1 to take booking of the gas cylinder or to supply the same to her. Hence, this case filed by the complainant.
Written version is filed by the OP No. 1, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature as the complainant is not a consumer under him. He also submits that no gas connection was given in the name of her late husband, one Bokul Saha. From the blue book of Gokul Saha it is available that the consumer No. BP 5028 took gas on 13/14 days alternatively. Besides this, it is not known to this OP how this complainant collected the blue book of a dead person and took gas supply from this OP in his name which is quite illegal. This complainant never sent any letter to this OP alleging for non-taking of booking by him as alleged in the petition of complaint. So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 2, Area Manager, IOC, Kolkata has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. He has denied that the alleged consumer No. BP 5028 stands in the name of the complainant and as such this complainant is not a consumer in the eye of law. He has also stated that the complainant never informed him about the alleged refusal of booking gas by the OP No. 1 by sending any letter. So the complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief as prayed for and hence, 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 complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties it is available on record that admittedly the gas cylinder does not stand in the name of the complainant, rather it stood in the name of one Gokul Saha. Complainant’s specific case is that she went to the office of the OP on 01.06.11 to book gas at which the OP declined without assigning any reason to her. OP has categorically submitted that this complainant is not a consumer under the OP No. 1 and so the case is not maintainable. From the documents filed by the complainant it is available that the connection No. BP 5028 was in the name of one Gokul Saha who was a consumer under the OP No. 1 since 13.08.2000. In the cause title of the complaint the complainant has described the name of her husband as Late Bokul Saha. She has not filed any document to show that Bokul Saha and Gokul Saha is the same and identical person. Rather in her examination-in-chief it is stated only that Bokul Saha is the nick name of her husband which she put on the cause title of her petition of complaint. But all the documents filed by this complainant show that the disputed connection stood in the name of Gokul Saha. She has not filed any separate affidavit, inter alia, stating that Gokul Saha and Bokul Saha is the same and identical person and her husband’s actual name is Bokul Saha alias Gokul Saha. No document is filed to that extent. In spite of that from the submission of the ld. lawyer for the complainant and on a carefully perusal of the petition of complaint it is revealed that the said consumer, Gokul Saha died in the year of 2007 and since then the complainant has been enjoying gas cylinder from the OP without intimating his death. On the other hand, by a letter dtd. 26.08.11 (‘Annexure – 6’) this OP No. 1 asked the complainant to surrender the service connection of Gokul Saha as soon as it came to his knowledge regarding his death. He also asked this complainant to contact his office with all relevant documents, as a result of which this OP No. 1 could change the gas in the name of his legal heir. From another document dtd. 06.06.2010 this OP served notice to all the consumers, inter alia, asking them to intimate him about the death of any consumer and to surrender the said gas cylinder in his favour for further giving to his legal heir. From the copy of the ration card filed by the OP it appears that the original consumer is Gokul Saha who produced the same before the OP at the time of taking connection. So considering the documents filed by both the parties it is established that the disputed connection stood in the name of one Gokul Saha. At the same time it is established that the complainant has not filed any satisfactory document to prove that Gokul Saha and Bokul Saha is the same and identical person and said Gokul Saha was her husband. The fact is that as soon as Gokul Saha expired he seized to be a consumer under the OP. In spite of that the complainant enjoyed gas cylinder from the OP after having the same in the name of late Gokul Saha which is quite irregular in the eye of law.
Regarding the alleged refusal of taking booking by the OP it is the submission of the OP that on 01.06.11 the OP No. 1 refused to take booking of her gas cylinder. But from the document filed by the OP No. 1 it is available that on 13.06.11 said booking was taken by the OP No. 1 and the gas cylinder was delivered on 14.06.11. So we find no reason why the OP refused to take book on 01.06.11. Prior to that booking was taken on 08.04.11 and the gas cylinder was delivered on 12.04.11 even on 30.06.11 booking was done and the gas cylinder was delivered on 05.07.11. In view of this we find that the allegation made by the complainant is not correct at all regarding refusal by the OP for non-taking of booking of gas cylinder.
In view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case along with the oral and documentary evidences filed by the parties our considered view is that the complainant is not a consumer under this OP No. 1. Besides this she has not become able to prove the alleged refusal by the OP and regarding non-taking of booking of gas by him. We further hold that as the complainant has not become able to prove her case, so she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/61 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.
