C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/30                                                                                                    

 

     

COMPLAINANT             :  Samar Dasgupta, 

S/o Jagajyoti Dasgupta,

C/o Kartik Ghosh,

Vill. Banasree Para, 

P.O. Krishnagar, 

P.S. Kotwali, Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1. Prop. M/S Satarupa Gas Service,

H.P.C. Distributors, D.L. Roy Road,

P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. K0twali, Nadia.

 

             : 2. Prop. M/S Nandeswari Gas Distributors,

H.P.C. Distributors, Union Board More,

P.O. + P.S. Sainthia, Dist. Birbhum.  

 

             : 3. Regional Co-Ordinator,

L.P.G. Bharat Gas Petroleum Ltd.

Plot No. 31, K.I.T. Scheme No. 118,

Prince Golam Mohd. Saha Road, Galf Green

P.O. Box No. 16201, Kolkata – 95

 

 

PRESENT                :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU              PRESIDENT

         :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

         :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    25th August, 2009

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

Page 2  of  5

The complainant, Samar Dasgupta has filed this case against the OPs viz., OP No. 1, Prop. M/S Satarupa Gas Service, OP No. 2, Prop. M/S Nandeswari Gas Distributors and OP No. 3, Regional Co-Ordinator, LPG, Bharat Petroleum alleging that while he was at Birbhum for his service he became the consumer under OP No.2 vide MV No. 756079 and TA, TV No. 9002856893 wherefrom he used to receive the Gas cylinder for his domestic purpose and  use the same.   At the time of taking the gas cylinder he deposited Rs. 1900/-.  After being transferred at Krishnagar from Sainthia, Birbhum he went to the OP No. 1 on 12.11.08, with the transfer voucher of Rs. 1800/- dtd. 27.10.08 and requested the OP No. 1 to issue the gas cylinder in his favour.   The OP No. 2 also sent  the papers which was received by OP No. 1 on 16.03.09.  The OP No. 1 stated the complainant that Rs. 1800/- had not been matching in the computer and the amount stated in the T.V. was wrong and asked him to correct the same.  The complainant went to OP No. 2 and informed the fact stated by OP No. 1 to him and OP No. 2 told the complainant that there was no mistake and the OP No. 1 willingly had been harassing him.  The complainant again on 16.12.08 after receiving the papers from OP No. 2 went to OP No. 1 who told that the papers should not be taken by hand and that would be received by Registered Post.   The OP No. 2 sent the papers to OP No. 1 by Registered Post.  On 20.03.09 the OP No. 1 did not agree to deliver the gas cylinder.  For want of  gas cylinder the complainant has been facing much inconvenience.   By filing this case he has prayed for a direction upon the OP No. 1 to supply the gas cylinder to the complainant, compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for harassment and mental agony, cost and other reliefs.

The OP No. 1 has contested this case by filing a written version whereon he has denied all the material averment of the complaint contending, inter alia, that the complainant obtained a S.V. Connection No. and T.V. Connection from Bharat P.C. Distributor, Sainthia, Birbhum and requested him to supply the  gas cylinder.  

Page 3 of 5

On perusal of the T.V. the OP No. 1 realized that the security amount and the date as mentioned in the T.V. was not correct and the rate supplied by the Company loaded in the computer, time to time, did not tally with the rate stated in the T.V.  Thus, he asked the complainant to correct the deposit as security amount and date.  At the relevant period the security amount per cylinder was Rs. 900/-.  As the OP No. 1 is a Distributor under HPC, he has to obey the rules and regulations supplied by HPC time to time otherwise, he will be penalized.   The OP No. 1 has not denied to deliver the  gas cylinder to the complainant but he asked the complainant to correct the T.V.   Thus, the OP No. 1 has not made any deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.

The other two OPs viz., OP No. 2  & 3 have not turned up to contest the case in spite of receipt of the notices.  

In view of the above facts and circumstances the only point to be considered  is whether there caused any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1.

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

It is admitted fact that the complainant came to OP No. 1 with a T.V. for obtaining a gas cylinder for domestic purpose from him.   The complainant was a consumer under Bharat P.C. Distributor, Sainthia, Birbhum.  It is also admitted fact that as the security amount of Rs. 1800/- as mentioned in the T.V. did not tally with the rate as set up in the computer of the OP No. 1, he presumed that the rate and the date as mentioned in the T.V. were erroneous and asked the complainant to correct the same from Sainthia.   

The Ld. Lawyer of the OP has argued that he is a Distributor under Hindustan Petroleum Corporation India Ltd. and he has to obey the rules and regulations as supplied by the said corporation.   The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant 

Page 4 of 5

has filed some papers viz., Annexures – A, B, C, C1, C2, C3 and D.    By referring the Annexure D the Ld. Lawyer has pointed out that the security amount as stated in the transfer voucher of the complainant does not tally with the rate as stated in Annexure-D.  Perused all the Annexures filed by the OP No. 1.

The Annexure-C3 reveals “3.1.5  Security Deposit 

Security Deposit from a consumer holding T.V. will be the same as reflected in the T.V. itself.”

The Annexure-C3 clearly transfers that the amount of security deposit will be the same as reflected in the T.V. itself.   Thus, there is no question of anomaly as to giving / depositing security amount.   The security amount of the T.V. in the previous occasion will be the same when the consumer will get a connection after being transferred and producing the transferred voucher.  The above cited rule clearly divulges the same.  Thus, returning the complainant for correcting of the T.V is nothing but harassment.  Besides, by non-supply of gas cylinder to the complainant on production of the T.V. and the required cash as stated in the T.V. is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1.

In view of the above observation, the case succeeds.

On scrutiny of the complaint which has been picturesque depicted the harassment, we can easily realize the inconvenience which has been suffered by the complainant by going to Sainthia several times and also for non-receipt of the gas cylinder causing havoc upset of domestic life.   In our considered view though that harassment cannot be mitigated, but that may be compensated by money value and if Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only is awarded as compensation then that may extenuate the grievance of the complainant. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That  the  case  is  allowed  on  contest  against  he  OP  No. 1  and exparte 

Page 5 of 5

against the OP No. 2 & 3  with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to be borne by the OP No. 1 alone.

The OP No. 1 is directed to deliver the gas cylinder within 3 days from the date of production of T.V. and the cash as mentioned in the T.V. by the complainant to him with the regulator for which the OP No. 1 can take its price. 

He is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the entire sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) only will carry interest @ 9% per annum from this day.

We pass no order against OP No. 2 & 3.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 1 month 10 days, i.e., within the statutory period.

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

 

   (D.K. Basu)

     President         

C.D.R.F., Nadia

(K. Mukhopadhyay)        (S. Bhattacharya)              (D.K. Basu)

          Member               Member                        President            

                     C.D.R.F., Nadia        C.D.R.F., Nadia         C.D.R.F., Nadia