THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.659/2015
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2017
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting an order directing the opposite parties to deliver a gas cylinder immediately to him and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the difficulties suffered by him due to callous and inimical attitude of the opposite party towards him and also cost of the proceedings.
The petitioner is a domestic consumer of the opposite party from 2011 onwards vide consumer No.51894844. His case is that the opposite party had deliberately withheld from delivering gas cylinder to him as he had denied payment of excess amount as TIP demanded by the opposite party. He is having only a singly gas cylinder and so the opposite party is bound to provide proper service in delivering cylinder whenever needed. It is alleged that the opposite party was not supplying the cylinder timely and only after so many phone calls and delay of many weeks they are supplying a cylinder to him. The opposite party is willfully making delay in supplying the cylinder and many times he was forced to make complaints before the authorities for getting a cylinder. They are doing so only with the evil intention to harass him and to make hardships to him. When he informed this matter to the Manager of the opposite party, it is told with a threatening voice that if he is not ready to pay the Tip, then he will not get the cylinders at times in future.
The petitioner further stated that on 04/02/2015 he had booked a cylinder but even after lapse of weeks the opposite party has not delivered the cylinder and so he made a complaint before the District Collector on 02/03/2015 and the Collector forwarded the complaint to the District Supply Officer for necessary action. As the Supply Officer has not take any action in this regard, he issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party dated 21/05/2015 stating all these facts and requesting supply of cylinder immediately but instead of complying his demand the opposite party replied to that notice with untenable and unsustainable contentions. As he is having only one gas cylinder, the opposite party is bound to give cylinder whenever he needed and the non-supply of the same willfully and intentionally amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and this caused much mental agony and other untold sufferings to him and his family. Hence he filed this petition.
The opposite party filed version denying all the allegations of the petitioner as false and untrue. It is admitted that the petitioner is their customer but denied his statement that they are deliberately withholding the supply of gas cylinder with ulterior motive to harass him as not true or correct. It is submitted that the petitioner was a regular visitor of their office with baseless complaints and was threatening their workers saying that he will file complaint against them through his wife for misbehavior to her and so the workers are afraid to deliver cylinder at his house and in this situation they are not in a position to deliver cylinders as home delivery. This is the only reason for not delivering the cylinder to the petitioner’s house and there is no willful latches or omission from their side in this regard. They are always ready to deliver cylinders from their retail counter to the petitioner without collecting any home delivery charges and if the petitioner assures in writing that he will not lodge any false complaint against the delivery boys then they are still ready to deliver the cylinder to his house without fail. Their workers have not demanded any TIP from the petitioner as alleged and at any time they are not inimical towards the petitioner also. The petitioner is liable to pay the approved charges for home delivery and nothing more. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their side as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and documents produced by him in support of his averments. These documents are marked as Ext.s A1 to A8.
According to the petitioner, he had denied payment of excess TIP to the delivery boys of the opposite party and in vengeance they had stopped supply of gas cylinders to his house. According to the opposite party, the petitioner had threatened the delivery boys with evil consequences of dishonouring the modesty of his wife and afraid of the same their delivery boys are not willing to supply the cylinders at the petitioner’s house. They submitted that if the petitioner assures in writing that he will not file any false complaint against their delivery boys then they are still ready to supply cylinders to his house. This fact was stated by the opposite party in their reply letter Ext. A2 to the lawyer notice of the petitioner Ext. A1 also. Ext. A2 is dated 26/06/2015 and this petition is filed on 18/12/2015. So it is found that the delay in supplying the cylinders is not because of the fault of the opposite party alone but the petitioner is also equally liable for the delay. So considering the facts of the case, though there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in delaying supply of cylinder to the petitioner, we cannot award any compensation for the delay due to the reasons stated above. At the same time we cannot order the petitioner not to file any complaint against the delivery boys in future as demanded by the opposite party also. Hence the following order is passed.
The opposite party is ordered to deliver the gas cylinder at the courtyard of the petitioner immediately on booking, after collecting only the approved charges and after informing the day and time of delivery, if they are afraid to enter into the house of the petitioner. They are also ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2017
Date of filing: 18/12/2015
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite party
A2. Reply received from opposite party
A3. Copy of complaint filed before Taluk Supply Officer, Koyilandy
A4. Copy of complaint filed before Taluk Supply Officer, Koyilandy
A5. Copy of complaint filed before District Collector, Kozhikode
A6. Copy of complaint filed before District Collector, Kozhikode
A7. Reply received from District Collector, Kozhikode
A8. Copy of complaint
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
None
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
