Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/857

REMADEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRPRITOR PAVITHARAM BHARATH GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 857/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.01.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.126/2015

 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH               : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                         : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

P.N.Ramadevi, W/o.K.G.RavindraNath, Kunnathuvayalil (Kallingal Building), East Manissery, Manissery.P.O, Ottappalamvia,Palakkad District

 

                        (Party in person)

VS

RESPONDENT

The Proprietor, Pavitram Bharat Gas Agency, Pavitram Arcade,      High Schoold Road, Cherppulassery.P.O, Palakkad

       

        (By Adv.Sri.R.Manikandan)

                                JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            The complainant in CC.No.126/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the forum by which the opposite party was directed to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation and     Rs 5000/- as cost to her.

 

                        2.     The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The 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 28.09.2014. After that she tried for rebooking of the cylinder over telephone but the telephone will always be engaged. On 28.09.2014 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 come through that route. 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 receive 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 cooer and electric heater. There was no facility for using firewood at her apartment. So during power cuts she had to purchase goods from the hotel. She had to pay a huge amount of electric charges during that period. She further submits that another agency had started functioning at Vaniyamkulam near her 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 connections were already transferred. Again she contacted opposite party for transfer and they told her to contact them at their office and submit a written request. When she contacted the Sales officer, he gave a vague reply. Hence she issued a show cause notice to the opposite party on 10.02.2015 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 five months.

           

            3.  The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The allegation that opposite party’s telephone was always engaged is without any basis. The complainant can directly approach the opposite party or through IVRS or through a letter for booking the refilled cylinder. The opposite party contended that after delivery on 28.09.2014 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 11.02.2015 the delivery boy of the opposite party contacted the complainant on 13.02.2015 and she informed him to deliver the refilled cylinder and accordingly on 16.02.2015 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 contended that after 29.09.2014 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 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 17/02/2015 as per the direction of Bharath Petroleum. All the consumers belonging to the Manissery areas had already been transferred toDevikripa 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 bonafides in the complaint filed by the complainant and she is not entitled for any of the damages claimed in the compliant and complaint had to be dismissed.

           

            4.  PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on their side. The report of the commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.

 

            5.  After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides, the lower forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum, the complainant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded by the lower forum.

 

            6.  Heard both sides. Perused the records.

 

            7.  The district forum considering the evidence, facts and circumstances brought out in evidence came to the conclusion that the opposite party cannot be held liable for non supply of gas cylinder to the complainant without demand from her. Opposite party has produced Ext.B6 to prove that the complainant had not booked for the gas cylinder during the relevant period. Complainant deposed that she was not aware of the fact that the booking can be done through IVRS system. Instead of that she had tried to contact the opposite parties over telephone. The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant never booked for refilled gas cylinder either through IVRS or directly or over phone. The district forum found that the opposite parties cannot be held liable for non supply of gas cylinder, since the complainant failed to prove that she had made demand for that to the opposite party. The complainant alleges that the opposite party collected excess amount for supply of gas cylinder. It is alleged by the complainant that the cost of gas cylinder was Rs 447/- and the opposite party has collected Rs 550/- from her including transportation charges. To prove the cost / price of the cylinder, the complainant has produced Ext.A5 which cannot be accepted in evidence since it is only a photocopy of a newspaper cutting. Opposite party has produced Ext.B4 to prove that they had the authority to collect the transportation charges as per the order of the District Collector. So, as found by the district forum there is no evidence to show that the opposite party has collected excess charges from the complainant for the supply of gas cylinder. Another complaint of the complainant was regarding the transfer of her gas connection to a nearby a gas agency named Devi Kripa. But the complainant herself had admitted during examination that her gas connection has already been transferred to the said agency in February 2015. The district forum, considering the testimony of PW1 to PW3 found that the opposite arty was not in the practice of issuing bills at the time of delivery of the gas cylinders even demanded and that amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It is submitted by the complainant that she had no other facilities for cooking except cooking gas. Since cylinder was not supplied by the opposite party, she has to depend upon induction cooker and electric cooker and 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 facts, the complainant had taken out an Advocate commission. The commissioner has visited the residential building of the complainant and reported those facts. Considering the evidence, the district forum noticed that the cylinder was not supplied to the complainant for about five months even though the opposite party cannot be held liable for that. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the district forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs 5000/- as cost. It was also directed that if the amount is not paid within one month, the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of the receipt of the order. We consider that the amount of compensation and cost ordered by the district forum is just and reasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the prayer of the appellant / complainant for enhancement of the amount ordered by the district forum cannot be allowed. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

           

            In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

            Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH      :JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                 : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 857/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.01.2019