C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2012/75

COMPLAINANT                  :           Soma Modok,

                                                            W/o Late Barun Modok,

                                                            Vill Rail Bazar Station  Road, P.O. Bethuadahari,

                                                            P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1)     Prop. Pradip Kumar Saha

                                                            Bishnupriya Gas Service,

                                                            Vill. Jagadanandapur,

                                                            P.O. Bethuadahari,

P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia

                                                   2)      General Manager (M.D)

                                                            West Bengal State Office,

                                                            Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2 No. Gariahat Road (South)

                                                            Kolkata - 700068

PRESENT                 : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

   : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH,          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :  14^th May, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

     This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant, Soma Modak is a resident of Vill. Rail Bazar Station Road, P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipra, Dist. Nadia.  She filed a complaint against Pradip Kumar Saha, proprietor of Bishnupriya Gas Service and the General Manager, West Bengal Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  The main grievance of the complainant as per the complaint is as below:-

The complainant is a consumer having consumer No. BP 10575.  On 03.07.12 the petitioner sent a person to OP No. 1 for booking the Gas Cylinder but OP No. 1 did not take the booking on the ground 21 days have not elapsed from the last booking.  Being aggrieved the petitioner informed this to the officer-in-charge of Nakashipara P.S.  and sent the copy of the letter to various authorities including OP No. 1.  This letter has been filed as annexure-1. OP No. 1 replied the petitioner vide letter dated 26.07.12 which has been filed as annexure-2 denying all the allegations of the petitioner. She also informed the matter to OP No. 2, the principal office of OP No. 1 vide letter dated 07.08.12.  Even after getting this letter they did not come forward to solve the problem. When all these attempts failed, the petitioner filed this instant case before the forum on 26.09.2012 for redressel with the following payers:-

1) Direction of OP No. 1 to take booking of the gas and ensure regular supply in the future.

2) Direction upon OP No.1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with litigation cost.

OP No. 1 filed written version on 08.04.2013.  The sum and substance may be put as below:-

It is not a fact that OP No. 1 did not take the booking of the gas cylinder from the petitioner’s representative on 03.07.2012.   OP No. 1 submits in his written version that the petitioner has brought a false allegation against an officer that he was present in the office when someone refused to takebooking of the gas. But  she could not mention the name and designation of that  person in his complaint petition.  They also submit that the petitioner could have easily contacted the I.O. officials over telephone when the contact numbers were there in the notice board in the office of OP No. 1 for the benefit of the customers only.   Hence, OP No. 1 prays for dismissal of the case having no merit.

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. Point No. 3:   Is the complainant entitled to get a relief as prayed for?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            We have carefully perused the documents on records, pleadings of the parties and the written arguments filed by the parties.  We have also gone through the affidavit-in chief and the corresponding interrogatories and the reply filed by the parties.

            We have also seen the photocopy of the history card filed by the complainant.  It is admitted position of the complainant that he is the consumer under the OP.

            Regarding deficiency in service, we hold that neither OP No. 1 nor OP No. 2 was deficient in service because the history card reveals that the petitioner is getting the gas supply regularly from 03.10.2012 till March, 2014 and it also seen that she got the delivery within 10 to 15 days from the date of booking depending upon the availability of the gas cylinder.  Moreover, the petitioner failed to prove that she or her representative went to the office of the OP No. 1 on 03.07.2012 for booking of the gas but the concerned officer refused to take the booking.  Hence all the points are disposed of with the observation that OP No. 1 has no deficiency in service and so the complainant has not entitled to get any relief. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case CC/2013/75 be and the same is dismissed on contest.  No cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.