C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/09
COMPLAINANT : Sisir Basak
S/o Late Gokul Chandra Basak
Vill. Station Road
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Pradip Kumar Saha (Proprietor)
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 No. 854 under the OP, who is a distributor of domestic Indane Gas. It is his further case that on 14.01.11 he went to the shop-room of the OP in order to book a gas cylinder as he required for cooking purpose at his house, but the OP declined to take booking of the gas cylinder. The complainant asked him about the cause for non-taking the gas cylinder booking from him at which no satisfactory reply was given by the OP. Thereafter, on 15.01.11 he sent a complaint to the Area Manager, I.O.C., Kolkata. In spite of that the OP did not take booking of the gas cylinder which is a gross deficiency in service on his part. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that this complainant is a consumer under him with regard to supply of gas cylinder. It is his specific contention that he all along supplied gas to this complainant in due time since the date of booking the gas and he always takes booking of the consumers which is displayed on the notice board at his office as per the norms of the I.O.C. He further submits that on the date stated by the complainant, he neither visited his office nor asked to book any gas cylinder. So no question of refusing to take gas booking by him does arise. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to tile this case and the same 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 version filed by the OP along with oral and documentary evidences submitted by the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant is a consumer of gas cylinder bearing No. BP 854, code No. 99026103 under the OP who is a supplier of Indane Gas. Complainant’s specific allegation is that on 14.01.11 he went to the shop-room of the OP No. 1 to book a gas cylinder at which the OP declined to take the same on the plea that the complainant received the previous gas cylinder on 09.01.11. From the document filed by the complainant it is available that he booked gas for last time on 24.12.10 and the said gas cylinder was supplied to him on 09.01.11. In the petition of complaint he has stated that due to demand of gas for cooking purpose he required a gas cylinder for which he went to the shop-room of the OP on 14.01.11 for booking gas cylinder. On 15.01.11 he lodged a complaint to the Sr. Area Manager, I.O.C., Kolkata against the OP for non-supply of gas cylinder to him. Neither in the petition of complaint nor at his examination-in-chief the complainant (PW-1) has stated why he required gas cylinder on 14.01.11 though he received a gas cylinder on 09.01.11. Nor it is explained by him how the gas cylinder was exhausted within a period of 5 days only since the date of receipt of the gas cylinder. One Sadhana Sarkar deposed as PW-2 in this case, but her name is not cited by the complainant as a witness in his petition of complaint. This PW-2 has stated that she is a consumer under the OP, but she has failed to state her consumer number nor she has stated why she went to the shop-room at that relevant time of alleged booking by the complainant. On the other hand, it is the categorical assertion of the OP that this complainant did not at all visit his office on 14.01.11 in order to book a gas cylinder. So no question of denying to book the gas cylinder on his part does arise. From the reply of interrogatories filed by the OP it is available that the OP has displayed a notice board in his office regarding booking of gas cylinder by the consumer. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has filed a letter issued by the I.O.C. to the complainant in which the I.O.C. has intimated that there is no minimum time limit for booking LPG gas and it is also intimated that if the consumer complainant had any grievance against his order he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority appointed under the Act within 30 days from the receipt of the communication. From another document filed by the OP it is available that after this disputed date the complainant booked gas on 03.02.11 and the said gas was supplied on 20.02.11. Again he booked gas on 15.03.11 and the same was supplied on 26.03.11 and the last gas cylinder was booked on 19.05.11 which was delivered to him on 22.05.11. So considering this document we find that the OP all along took booking from the complainant regularly and supplied the same to him within a reasonable time.
Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts of this case it is available to us that the complainant at all did not go to book a gas cylinder within 5 days since the date of receipt of the gas cylinder from the OP. It is also established that he has not disclosed any cogent ground or reason how the cylinder was exhausted within a period of 5 days. Besides this the evidence of PW-2 is not trustworthy as she even failed to disclose her own consumer number and the reason why she went to the office of the OP at the relevant time. From the letter of the I.O.C., we find that no specific date is mentioned by it for taking the next booking by a gas dealer. Besides this the complainant was advised to make an appeal before the appellate authority against his grievance, but no such appeal was preferred by the complainant.
Therefore, considering all this we are inclined to hold that the complainant has not become able to prove and establish his case against the OP. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/09 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.
