C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/88
COMPLAINANT : Tarakeswar Debnath
S/o Gokul Chandra Debnath
Vill. Jugpur, P.O. Jugpur,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Prop. Bishnupriya Gas Service,
Vill. Jagadanandapur,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 2nd July, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the OP having SV No. 59766 and consumer No. BP 13710 in connection with the supply of Indane gas. It is his further case that he is a customer of one gas cylinder but subsequently he required double cylinder and accordingly, he filed an application before the OP. In response to that the OP directed him to meet him on 18.08.09. He met the OP at his office when the OP disclosed that for the purpose of double cylinder he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 2170/- against which no receipt would be issued in his favour. On 26.10.09 he asked the OP by sending a letter to accept the actual amount for supply of the second cylinder, but no step was taken on the side of the OP in this matter. Hence, having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are not true at all. It is admitted by him that the complainant is a consumer under him and he regularly supplies him one gas cylinder as per requirement of the complainant. He is ready to supply the second cylinder as per rules and regulations of IOC. So no question of demanding Rs. 2170/- from the complainant for supply of the second gas cylinder does arise at all. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file 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 the complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with the annexed documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that this complainant, Tarakeshwar Debnath is a consumer under the OP, Bishnupriya Gas Service having consumer No. BP – 13710 for supply of one gas cylinder to the complainant by the OP. It is available from the argument advanced uby the ld. lawyer for the complainant that the OP regularly supplies one gas cylinder to this complainant as per his requirement. His only grievance is that though he applied for second cylinder but the OP did not sanction it in his favour. Rather the OP demanded Rs. 2170/- for supply of the second cylinder. On this point no document is filed by the complainant. He has only filed his examination-in-chief and reply of interrogatories supplied by the OP. At reply of interrogatory No. 6 this complainant simply stated that the OP demanded Rs. 2170/- from him. On the other hand, from the documents filed by the OP it is available that on 05.11.09 this OP sent a letter to the complainant by under certificate of posing asking him to appear before this OP within 09.11.09 to 12.11.09 in order to accept the second cylinder as per rules. In that letter he also requested the complainant to bring with him all the required documents. There is no whisper about this letter by the complainant in his petition of complaint. Rather the ld. lawyer for the complainant submits at the time of argument that the complainant did not at all receive this letter. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the OP frankly submits that this OP is always ready to deliver the second cylinder to the complainant subject to observation of all the rules and regulations framed by IOC. Besides this, in the written version the OP has categorically stated at Para – 9 that he is always ready to supply double gas cylinder as per rules and regulations of IOC.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions it is available to us that this complainant is a consumer under the OP who receives supply of one gas cylinder regularly from the OP. The allegation of demanding of Rs. 2170/- by the OP for supply of second gas cylinder is not established at all. On the other hand from the documents filed by the OP it is established that he is always ready to supply second gas cylinder observing the rules and regulations made by the IOC. Besides this we do also find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP in non-supplying the second gas cylinder in favour of the complainant which is revealed also from the letter sent by the OP to this complainant dtd. 04.11.09 through under certificate of posting. Considering the facts of this case we don’t find any cogent ground to grant litigation cost in favour of the complainant as the complainant has become able to prove his case in part. So he is entitled to get a decree in part also.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/88 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP without any cost. The complainant is entitled to have a second cylinder of gas from the OP which the OP will issue in his favour after observing all the formalities as prescribed by IOC within a period of 45 days since this date of passing this judgment. He is also directed to inform the complainant regarding the date of contact with him by sending a letter by registered post. Complainant is to contact the OP on that date along with all the requisite documents and money for having supply of second gas cylinder from the OP.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
