C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/19                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Subrata Saha

C/o Late Banshibadan Saha

Vill. Khidirpur Saratpally,

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.  Sr. Area Manager,

Kolkata Indane Office,

Indian Oil Bhaban,

2, Gariahat Road (Office)

Dhakuria, Kolkata 700068.  

 

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    18th November, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the 

Page 2 of 5

OP No. 1 with regard to cooking gas bearing No. DP 5665.  It is his further case that on 14.03.09 the OP No.1 supplied him one cylinder full of gas.   At the time of delivery he suspected about the weight of the cylinder.  Then he himself took weight of the said cylinder and found that its weight was 29.460 Kgs, but the actual weight would be 30 Kgs.  Thus, the OP No. 1 supplied him gas 540 gms less than the actual gas of weighing 14.200 Kgs.  The weight of the empty cylinder is 15.400 Kgs.  He thereafter, brought it notice of the OP No. 1, but to no effect.   So having no other alternative the complainant has filed this case praying for reliefs as stated in the complaint. 

The OP No. 1 has contested this case by filing a written statement, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature.  It is his specific contention that the gas cylinder was supplied to this complainant in sealed condition and being satisfied the complainant received the same.  At the time of delivery he did not raise any objection about the quantity of gas in the cylinder.  Besides this, this complainant never lodged any complaint to him about the defect of the gas cylinder.  He also submits that in every delivery van there is a weighing machine by which the weight of the gas cylinder is done and, thereafter it is delivered to the consumer, but in the instant case this complainant did not raise any objection at the time of delivery of gas by deliveryman.  He also submits that there is no mention in the report of the Legal Metrology to that effect that the gas cylinder which was examined by the department was supplied by this OP.  The complainant had previous enmity with the OP with regard to business transactions for which he has filed this case against him.  So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the case is liable to be dismissed against him.

The OP No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation has also filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that this OP No. 1 is a distributor under him and he works independently.  He also submits that the deliveryman of the OP No.1 

Page 3 of 5

used to carry the weighing machine which was calibrated by the Legal Metrology Department and the complainant being satisfied of net weight of the LPG accepted the same and paid price of the LPG gas to the deliveryman.  This complainant never lodged any complaint before the OP No. 1 regarding the shortage of gas in the cylinder supplied to him.   It is the duty of the consumer to check the actual weight of the cylinder prior to delivery of the same to him.  As the gas was supplied by the OP No.2 who works independently, so the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against the OP No.2.  Hence, the case 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:         Has the complainant become able to prove this case?

Point No.3:      Is he entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

All 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 along with the annexed documents and the written versions filed by the OPs and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both the parties, it is available on record that the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 with regard to cooking gas connection.  It is also available that on 14.03.09 the OP No. 1 supplied one gas cylinder full of gas to this complainant, vide Annexure – 3.  Complainant's specific case is that immediately after taking delivery from the deliveryman he took weight of the full cylinder and found that its weight was 29.460 Kgs though the actual 

Page 4 of 5

weight would be 30 Kgs, i.e., 5.40 gms gas was less than the exact quantity of gas to be supplied to the customer.  Thereafter, this complainant intimated the OP No. 1 about this, but to no effect and hence the case was filed by him.   In course of trial of this case, at the direction of this Forum, Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology Department at Krishnagar of Nadia District made an weighment of the gas cylinder and submitted a report also to that extent which is marked as Exhibit – 1.  It is available that the total weight of the cylinder was found by the Legal Metrology Department as 29.524 Kg.   It is also stated in the Annexure – 1 that the weight of the empty cylinder is 15.8 kg and the net quantity of LPG gas in the cylinder is 13.724 Kg.   He has also stated in that report that the LPG cylinder was brought to him in sealed condition with the engraved serial No. 6083885.   The inspector of Legal Metrology Department is examined before this Forum as PW – 1, who has also admitted in his deposition that he has examined the cylinder and found the weight as stated in his report.  He has also stated in his deposition that the gas cylinder contains 14.2 Kg of gas.   So comparing the report of the PW- 1 along with his deposition we find that actually there was less quantity of gas in the cylinder to that extent of 476 gms.   On the side of the OP, ld. lawyer submits that at the time of delivery, the deliveryman made weight of the gas cylinder in presence of the customer and being satisfied the customer took delivery of the cylinder, but to that extent there is no endorsement on Annexure – 3.  Even in the Annexure – 3, the No. of the cylinder is not mentioned though it is the contention of the OP that the gas cylinder which was measured by the Legal Metrology Department was not at all supplied by him.  He has not stated the number of the cylinder which was actually delivered to the complainant.  So considering all these we have no hesitation to hold that the disputed gas cylinder was supplied by this OP to this complainant.  It is also argued on the side of the OP that the complainant had previous business enmity with the OP due to which he filed this case.  At cross examination of OP 

Page 5 of 5

No.1 has stated that he had no previous enmity with the complainant.   No document is filed also to that extent by the OP that he has previous enmity regarding business transaction with the complainant.

Therefore, after a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing arguments of the ld. lawyer for the parties our considered view is that the complainant has become able to establish that the OP supplied him a gas cylinder which had less quantity  of 476 gms gas than actual gas contained in the cylinder.  It is also established that the OP did not take any step to remove the grievance of the customer.  Therefore, we also hold that there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  So the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs in this case.  In result the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/19 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP No. 1 & 2 .  The OP No. 1 is directed to supply a fresh gas cylinder in lieu of old one within a period of  one month since this day.  The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment caused to him along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.   The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only within a period of one month since this date failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest upon the decretal amount @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.

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