C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/97                                                                                                   

 

COMPLAINANT : Sushil Kundu, 

S/o Gobinda Kundu

Vill. Uday Chandrapur,

P.O. Uday Chandrapur,

P.S. Nakashipara,

Dist. Nadia 

 

– Vs  – 

 

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, Indane

34A, Nirmal Chandra Street,

Kolkata – 13 (Opp. Hind Cinema)

 

 

PRESENT              :  SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

        : SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL          MEMBER

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    29th March, 2012

 

 

:    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 who is a distributor of Indane Gas.  His consumer No. is BP 13409.  It is his further contention that on 10.09.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book gas cylinder when the OP No. 1 denied to book gas unless he purchased some articles from him.  Being pressurized the complainant purchased those five articles from the OP No. 1.  In spite of that the OP No. 1 did not take booking from him.  On 14.09.11 the OP No.1 took booking of gas from him which was also supplied to him.  On 12.10.11 when the OP No. 1 did not book the gas cylinder in his favour, the complainant made a complaint before the Chief Minister, West Bengal and a copy of which was sent to the OP No. 1, 2 & other Government Officials.  As the complainant did not get any remedy after sending the complaint on 12.10.11, so he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

OP No. 1 has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  It is his submission that as per demand of the complainant he supplied the articles to him with proper cash memo and all those articles were supplied by the OP No. 2 to this OP No. 1.  He also submits that there is no question for not taking booking of the gas of the complainant as alleged in para-4 of his petition of complaint.  Besides this there are many ways for gas booking by telephone and SMS also.  He has also mentioned in the notice board at his office that there is no bar for booking gas by a customer.  So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and hence, it 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 along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and the written version filed by the OP No. 1 it is available on record that this complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 with regard to Indane Gas bearing consumer No. BP 13409.  The complainant’s specific contention is that on 14.09.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book a gas cylinder at which the OP No. 1 declined to book the gas without purchasing some articles from him as mentioned in the petition of complaint.  It is his submission also that under compelling circumstances he had to purchase those articles at a price of Rs. 215/-.  In spite of that the OP No. 1 did not take booking his gas.  Again on 12.10.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book gas cylinder but without assigning any reason the OP No. 1 did not book the gas cylinder.  From this petition of complaint it is also available that on 14.09.11 he again went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book gas cylinder.  On that date the booking was taken by the OP No. 1 and that gas cylinder was also supplied to him.  In the prayer portion it is categorically stated to direct the OP No. 1 to take booking of gas cylinder from him regularly and it is also prayed to refund him Rs. 215/- which he paid to purchase some articles form the OP No. 1 on compulsion.  Now the question is how far the complainant has become able to prove his case.  ‘Annexure – 1’ shows that on 10.09.11 the complainant purchased some articles viz., bleaching, acid, e/klin etc. at a price of Rs. 215/- from the OP No. 1.  Admittedly, there is no witness on the side of the complainant that on 10.09.11 he went to the office of the OP No. 1 to book a gas cylinder and he was forced to purchase some articles from the OP No. 1.  In reply of interrogation the complainant as PW-1 has stated that on that date he was accompanied by one of his neighbours, but his name is not known to him.  This answer of the complainant is very mysterious to us as he does not know the name of the neighbour who accompanied him at the time of visit the office of the OP No. 1.  Even that neighbour has not adduced any evidence in this case in favour of the complainant.  In the written version the OP No. 1 has stated that the complainant can book gas over telephone and SMS also, but this complainant did not take any step to book gas by any of those means also.  Practically, he is silent on this point.  In the petition of complaint, at para-6 it is stated that the cause of action of this case arose on and from 12.10.11 when the complainant did not get any remedy after sending the complaint to the OP No. 1.  Practically, from ‘Annexure – 2’ it is available that the complainant made the complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal on 12.10.11, and a copy of which was sent to the OP No. 1.  From the petition of complaint it is available that on 14.09.11 the complainant booked gas which was also supplied to him.  From the document filed by the OP No. 1, it is available that this complainant booked gas on 12.02.12 which was supplied to him on 26.02.12.  The present case was filed on 18.11.11.  From the documents filed by the complainant it is available that he did not take any step to book gas either by telephone or by SMS after 12.10.11 till 12.02.12.  It is already on record that he booked gas on 12.02.12  and that gas was supplied to him on 26.02.12 by the OP No. 1.  It is already discussed that the complainant has failed to mention the name of his neighbour who accompanied him at the time of booking gas on 12.10.11.  Practically, there is no evidence on record to establish that the OP refused to take booking of gas in favour of the complainant on 12.10.11 excepting the solitary evidence of complainant himself.  Regarding purchase of some articles from the OP No. 1 on compulsion by this complainant is not also established.  

Therefore, in view of above discussions and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers on both sides, our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case.  So he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  In result the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/11/97 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 and exparte against the OP No. 2 without any cost. 

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