C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/98
COMPLAINANT : Sadhana Sarkar
W/o Judhisthir Sarkar
Vill.+P.O. Nakashipara,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Prop. Prodip Kumar Saha,
Bishnupriya Gas Service,
Vill. Jagadanandapur,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara,
Pin – 741126, Dist. Nadia
2) Sr. Area Manager,
Indane Gas,
Kolkata Area Office,
34A, Nirmal Chandra Street,
Kolkata – 13 (Opp. Hind Cinema)
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 19th April, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer under the OP No. 1 with regard to Indane Gas being consumer No. BP 14016. It is her further case that on 21.08.11 she booked gas cylinder which was supplied on 12.09.11 though another consumer booked gas on 21.08.11 to whom gas cylinder was supplied on 04.09.11. This complainant intimated the OP at the time of booking gas that her previous cylinder was exhausted, as she had a small function at her house and also requested the OP to supply her gas at an early date. But this OP willingly supplied her gas cylinder on 12.09.11. This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 for delay supply of gas cylinder. So having no other alternative this case is filed 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 this case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that as per availability the OP No. 1 supplied the gas cylinder to the complainant. He also submits that the complainant never told him for early supply of any gas cylinder nor exhausting of gas cylinder at the time of booking. This OP always supplied gas cylinder to the consumer as per their booking and so no question of harassment or deficiency in service on his part, does arise. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
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 complaint and the written version filed by the OP No. 1 along with the oral and documentary evidences laid by the parties and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant is a consumer with regard to Indane Gas under the OP No. 1. It is also available on record that on 21.08.11 this complainant booked gas which was supplied to her on 12.09.11. The complainant’s allegation is that on the selfsame date another person booked gas also to whom cylinder was supplied on 04.09.11. But in the petition of complaint she has not mentioned the name of that person. On her side PW 2, one Subrata Saha has filed examination-in-chief, inter alia, stating that he is a consumer under the OP No. 1 being consumer No. BP 5665 and booked gas on 21.08.11 and the said gas was supplied to him on 04.09.11. From the documents filed by the complainant it is also established. Now the only question is whether the OP No. 1 caused any deficiency in service to the complainant in not supplying her gas on 12.09.11 which was booked on 21.08.11. At the time of argument it is frankly submitted by the ld. lawyer for the complainant that there is no hard and fast rule of the IOC to supply gas cylinder on a fixed date. Rather it depends upon the stock of the OP No. 1 to supply gas to a consumer. From the document (annexure – 3) filed by the complainant, it is available that prior to the present occasion she booked gas on 15.06.11 and same was delivered to her on 24.06.11, gas booked on 23.01.11 was supplied to her on 23.02.11. Gas booked on 22.11.10 was supplied to her 02.12.10. So this ‘Annexure – 3’ shows that this complainant used to get gas after a long gap of booking. Besides this, she has not categorically stated in her petition of complaint what function was held at her house at which her previous cylinder became exhausted. Her witness, i.e., the PW 2 has not stated anything on this point. From the evidence of PW 2 we find that he was not present at the time of booking gas also. From the deposition of PW 1 it is also available that she lives 7 km far from the office of the OP No. 1. From the document filed by the complainant it is available that she booked gas for the last time on 03.03.12 which was supplied to her on 15.03.12. Considering the ‘Annexure – 3’ and this document, we find usually there is a gap of more than 15 days in supplying of gas to this complainant since the date of booking. The complainant cannot claim any deficiency in service for supply of gas to Subrata Saha, PW 2 on 04.09.11 who booked gas on 21.08.11 i.e., the self same date of booking of gas by the complainant.
In view of above discussions and considering the facts of this case we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 for supplying the gas cylinder to this complainant on 12.09.11 which was booked on 21.08.11. As the complainant has not become able to prove her case, so she is not entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/98 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 and experte against the OP No. 2 without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
