C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/100
COMPLAINANT : Bimal Roy,
S/o Late Chitanya Roy
Vill. + P.O. Bilbagram,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Prop. Pradip Kumar Saha,
Bishnupriya Gas Service,
Vill. Jagadanandapur,
P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia.
- Gobinda Sarkar
S/o Narayan Sarkar
Vill. + P.O. Bilbagram,
P.S. Nakashipara,
3) Area Manager (Sr.)
Kolkata Area Office,
Indian oil Bhaban, 2 No. Gariahat Road
Dhakuria, Kolkata – 700 068
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th 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 No. 1 for supplying gas cylinder being consumer No. BP14605. It is his further case that OP No. 1 does not directly book gas from the complainant. Rather the OP No. 2 books and delivers gas to this complainant, who is a delivery man under the OP No. 1 and takes Rs. 350/- as price of each gas cylinder but does not deliver any receipt to that extent. This OP No. 2 delivers gas cylinder to the self same date of booking the gas. From booking slip dtd. 05.08.09 and 07.11.09 gas cylinder was booked and delivered by the OP No. 1 through the OP No. 2 and in every respect it was delivered one and half months after the date of booking. The complainant sent a complaint to the OPs by filing a letter dtd. 08.11.09 stating his grievance, but no action was taken on behalf of the OPs for redressal of his grievances. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1 has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that the complainant is a consumer under him being No. BP 1460. This OP directly books the gas from the consumer and supplies the same to him through delivery man and the OP No. 2 works under him as a delivery man. It is not correct at all that no receipt was issued to this complainant after booking of any gas and the price of Rs. 350/- was not at all taken from the complainant. The complainant never filed any complaint before him stating the grievances, rather he filed a complaint before the Minister in order to harass this OP. So 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 along with the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that this complainant is a consumer under this OP No. 1 with regard to supply of gas cylinder. It is the case of the complainant that booking of gas is not taken directly by the OP No. 1, rather through the OP No. 2 who is his delivery man. So from the petition of complaint we find that the OP No. 2 is not a third party, rather he works under the OP No. 2 as a delivery man. So there is no bar to book the gas by the OP No. 2 who is a paid employee of the OP No. 1. The next allegation of the complainant is that booking and delivery of gas are done on the self same date and sometimes it is delivered after one and half months from the date of booking. In this regard he has filed a document (Annexure – 4). 'Annexure – 4’ shows that booking was done on 18.05.09 and the delivery was done on 26.05.09. Again booking was done on 21.06.09, 05.08.09, 07.09.09 and 07.11.09 and gas cylinder was delivered to this complainant on 24.06.09, 05.08.09, 20.09.09 and 07.11.09 respectively. So on a careful perusal of the 'Annexure – 4’ we find that the allegation of the complainant is not true at all as no delivery was done after one and half months from the date of booking. Rather delivery of booking was done on the self same date on 05.07.09 and 07.11.09. The complainant has further alleged that in each case at the time of delivery OP No. 1 had to pay Rs. 350/- for that gas cylinder and to that extent no receipt was delivered by the OP No. 2. But from the 'Annexure – 4’ we find that he all along booked gas and took delivery without assigning any objection. Besides this there is no other witness or any document to show that the OP No. 1 charged Rs. 350/- as price of the gas cylinder. 'Annexure – 2’ is a copy of the complaint made by the complainant to the Minister of Natural Gas and Petroleum, Govt. of India, New Delhi from which it is available that he has not stated anything regarding non-issue of receipt by the complainant after taking Rs. 350/- as price of one gas cylinder.
Therefore, in view of our above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove and establish his allegations against the OP No. 1. So we hold that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. Hence, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/100 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.
