CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th September, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               : SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                       Date  of filing : 28/02/2015

               : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN , MEMBER

CC /26/2015

P.N.Remadevi,

W/o.K.G.Raveendranath,                                 :        Complainant

Kunnathuvayalil (Kallingal Building),

Manissery East, Manissery Post,

Ottapalam Via, Palakkad – 679 521

             Vs

Proprietor,                                                     :        Opposite party

Pavithram Bharath Gas Agency,

Pavithram Arcade,

High School Road,

Cherpulassery Post, Palakkad

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party bearing consumer number 52550540 .  Formerly the complainant was purchasing gas from Thaliyadan Gas agencies but on July 2014 the agency was transferred to the present opposite party without his consent or knowledge.  The complainant alleges that after the said transfer she had never received refilled cylinder.  She submits that she had received refilled cylinder on 28/9/2014.  After that she tried for rebooking of the cylinder over telephone but the telephone will always be engaged.  On 28/9/2014, when the cylinder was delivered the opposite party had not issued bill for the said cylinder instead he had collected Rs.550/- as charges without any bill.  The complainant alleges that at that particular time the cost of a refilled cylinder was only Rs.447/- as per government notification.  She further alleges that the opposite party never used to issue bills even to her neighbours.  When she enquired about the purchase bill and also about collecting extra charges the opposite party had developed vengeance towards her.  So they had stopped issuing refilled cylinder to her.  When contacted over telephone the opposite party informed that she need not book the cylinder but they will supply the cylinder as and when the vehicles comes through that rout.  Believing this words she waited for the opposite party on the way along with the empty cylinder.   But the complainant submits that for the past five months she did not received the cylinder.  The complainant further submits that she had only a single connection and had no other option for cooking.  So she had to depend upon induction cooker and electric heater.    There  was no facility for using firewood at her apartment. So during power cuts she had to purchase foods from the hotel or neighbours for the daily food of her family.   She had to pay a huge amount of electric charges during those period.  She further submits that another agency had started functioning at Vaniyamkulam near his residence, and she had approached the opposite party for transfer of her connection to the above said agency but they informed that it will be transferred automatically after 10^th of January 2015.  But as informed it was not transferred even after February and she enquired about it to her neighbours and they informed her that their connection was already transferred.  Again she contacted opposite party for transfer and they told her to contact them at their office and submit a written request.  They also supplied a phone number of their sales officer.  When contacted to the Sales Officer he gave a vague reply.  Hence she issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 10/2/2015 but the opposite party did not reply it.    Hence she had approached before this forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to grant Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony suffered due to the non delivery of refilled cylinder for the period of continuous 5 months.

Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegation alleged in the complaint.  The allegation that opposite party’s telephone was always engaged is without any basis.    The complainant can directly approached the opposite party or through IVRS or through a letter for booking the refilled cylinder.  The opposite party contends that after delivery on 28/9/2014 he had issued bill to the complainant and had not collected any excess charges.  He had never informed the complainant to wait with the empty cylinder on road for collecting the refilled cylinder.  After receipt of lawyer notice on 11/2/2015 the delivery boy of the opposite party contacted the complainant on  13/2/2015 and she informed him to deliver the refilled cylinder and accordingly on 16/2/2015 delivery boy approached the complainant with the refilled cylinder and bill, but her door was locked.  The delivery boy tried to contact the complainant over phone but the call was rejected. Since the delivery boy approached the complainant soon after the receipt of notice they did not care to reply for the same.  The opposite party further contented that after 29/9/2014 the complainant had never approached the opposite party over phone or at their office directly or applied for the refilled cylinder.  Complainant’s residence is at about 16 kms away from the opposite party’s office. If the complainant had to apply for transfer she had to submit a written application on 17/2/2015 as per the direction of Bharath Petroleum .  All the consumers belonging to the Manissery areas had already been transferred to Devikripa Agency at Vaniyamkulam.  The consumers can avail IVRS system  for booking refilled gas at any time.  The complainant without using the said facility had blamed the opposite party unnecessarily for the non delivery.  There is no baonafides in the complaint filed by the complainant and she is not entitled for any of the damages claimed in the complaint  and  complaint had to be dismissed.

The complainant filed proof affidavit along with witness list.  Opposite party also filed affidavits along with documents.  Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.   Complainant was examined as PW1 and witnesses were examined PW2 and PW3.  Ext.A1 to A5 were  marked from the part of the complainant.  Complainant filed another application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. An Advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the property of the complainant and filed a detailed report.    Ext.B1-B6 was marked from the part of the opposite parties.  Commission report was marked as Ext.C1.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

We had perused the available evidence and affidavits filed from both  parties.  The main grievance of the complainant is that she was not supplied with refilled  cylinder for continuous five months and she had suffered much mental agony and difficulties due to that. The contention  of the opposite party is that they had never booked for refilled cylinder either through IVRS or directly or over phone.  The complainant submits that whenever she tried to contact the opposite party, their office phone was always engaged. PW1 during cross examination deposed that when contacted once they informed her that  “വണ്ടി ആ വഴി വരുമ്പോള്‍ മാറ്റിതരാം എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. അതിനായി ഞാന്‍ പല ദിവസങ്ങളോളം cylinder ആയി വഴിയില്‍ കാത്തു നിന്നു. പക്ഷേ വണ്ടി വന്നില്ല”.

But it is well settled position that only if the cylinder is booked, the opposite party can supply the cylinder. Without demand they need not supply the cylinder.  They had also produced Ext.B6 to prove that complainant had not booked for the cylinder during that relevant period. Moreover complainant states that they were not provided bills when cylinders were supplied.  But opposite party produced counter foil of the bill issued to complainant during the delivery of cylinder on 16/2/2015.  During cross examination complainant denied that allegation and deposed that the said bill was not signed by her and no so such bill was issued to her.  The witnesses PW2 and PW3 also supported the above aspect. They also deposed that opposite party had never issued bills to them during the delivery of the cylinder. The opposite party had not produced any other counter foils to prove that they had usual practice of delivering bills to the consumers in that locality.  Another contention put forward by the complainant   is that the opposite party had collected excess charge from them. When the cost of the cylinder was Rs.447/- they had collected Rs.550/- from them including transportation charges.  But opposite party had produced Ext.B4  to prove that they had the authority to collect transportation charges as per the order of the District Collector. The document which was marked as Ext.A5 showing the price of the cylinder has no evidentiary value.  It is only a photocopy of the news paper cutting and cannot be looked into.  Another prayer of the complainant is to transfer her gas connection to a nearby agency named Devikripa.  But the complainant herself had admitted during examination that her connection had already been transferred to the said agency on February 2015. 

Complainant submits that she had no other facilities for cooking excepting cooking gas.  Since the cylinder was not supplied by the opposite party she had to depend upon induction cookers and electric cooker and even for neighbours for cooking purpose,  thereby she had to pay huge amount as electric charges.   There is no provision for any fireplace in the house of the complainant. To prove the above fact, the complainant had taken out an Advocate commission. The commissioner has visited the property and had reported the said fact.  Considering the arguments from both sides it is noticed that the cylinder was not supplied to the complainant for the last five months. The complainant had also deposed that she was not aware of the fact  that booking can be done through IVRS system.  Instead she had tried to contact over telephone to the opposite party.  The opposite party cannot be held liable for the non supply without demand from the part of the consumer.  But the fact that opposite party’s never used to issue bills to the consumers had been supported by the witnesses.  The witnesses had deposed to the effect that the opposite party’s are not in the practice of issuing bills at the time of the delivery of the cylinder even if demanded.  This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the above case we are of the view that the above complainant was also negligent for the non-availability of refilled cylinder. Hence the complaint is allowed in part and   we direct the opposite party  to  pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant for not issuing the bills to her along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  as cost.  The afore said amount shall also be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th  day of September, 2016.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                             Shiny.P.R

                                                                              President

                                                                Sd/-                                                                                                          Suma. K.P

                                                                               Member

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                    V.P. Anantha Narayanan

                                                                            Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –Copy of notice dtd.10/02/2015

Ext.A2– Acknowledgement Card original

Ext.A3-Self attested copy of customer card number 52550540 in the name of complainant

Ext.A4 – Electricity bills and receipts  4 nos (Original)

Ext.A5- Paper publication of new price list of gas cylinder.  (Photocopy)

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Remadevi

PW2- P.Kuttisankaran

PW3-Madhavankutty

C1- Commission report (Adv.K.S.Vivek)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Copy of bill  dtd.28/09/2014 .

Ext.B2-Copy of bills dtd.16/2/2015

Ext.B3series- Copy of telephone bills (10 nos)

Ext.B4-Copy of proceedings dtd.12/10/2011 issued by Palakkad Dist.Collector

Ext.B5-LPG Next - MIS Reports  TA Summary

Ext.B6- Consumers’ Consumption dtd. 1/4/2015

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rupees 5,000/- as cost.