Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/99/2012

THE PROPRIETOR, GOLDEN GAS SERVICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. RANGASAMY - Opp.Party(s)

T. RAVI KUMAR

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                  BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                    Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 99/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No 33/2011 dated 15.12.2011  on the file of the DCDRF,Coimbatore]

DATED THIS THE   30^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

The Proprietor

M/s Golden Gas Service

12/201, Avinashi Road

Coimbatore 641 004                                                                             ..2^nd opp.party/Appellant

                                           Vs

1. R.Rangasamy

1/61, Anna Nagar

Neelambur, Coimbatore 641 817                                                       ..complainant/ Respondent     

 

2. The Manager

M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

4G S Curimbhoy Road

P B No. 688, Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 001                                                                                   ..1^st opp.party/Respondent

 

Counsel for the Appellant/ 2^nd opp.party     : M/s T. Ravikumar

Counsel for the  complainant/ 1^st Respondent   : Mr. S.Natarajan

Counsel for the  1^st opp.party/2^nd Respondent    : Given up

 

      The 2^nd opposite party is the appellant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/2^nd opposite party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No. 33/2011 dated 15.12.2011.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 8.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         The 2^nd opposite party is the appellant.

2.        The complainant is being a customer of 2^nd opposite party in getting the gas cylinders for his LPG connection booked for a refill on 21.5.2010 with booking No. 22272 which was not  supplied even after two and half months from the date of booking and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming relief of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for cost.

3.       The 1^st opposite party contended that they are only producers having agreement with the 2^nd opposite party in no way connected with the distribution of cylinder directly.

4.         The 2^nd opposite party contended that the booking for refill made on 21.5.2010 and the same was delivered on 12.6.2010 and thereby no deficiency in service on their part.  

5.        Based on both side materials, the District Forum after an enquiry allowed the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party/appellant alone by directing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings as Rs.1000/- as cost and dismissed the complaint against 1^st opposite party.  

6.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 2^nd opposite party filed the appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of delivery of the cylinder on 12.6.2010 thereby the appeal to be allowed.

7.          We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard. It is not in dispute that the complainant booked for the supply of refill cylinder on 21.5.2010 which is alleged not supplied even after two and half months. But the appellant contended that the supply was made on 12.6.2010 by relying the supply data details under Ex.B.2. On perusal of Ex.B.2, relating to the supply of refills to the complainant on various dates from 14.5.2008 and after booking on 20.7.2010, booking was made on 21.5.2010 which was entered in the delivery book with the customer under Ex.A.3 in which the entry was found for the delivery only for booking on 27.3.2010 and there is entry for recording on 21.5.2010 with booking No.22272. In the grounds of memorandum, it is mentioned that the delivery was made to an old lady was in complainant’s house, hence it could not be recorded in the delivery book in Ex.A.3. On perusal of the proof affidavit of appellant, such plea was not taken, except mentioning that the booking was delivered on 12.6.2010. Further when the complainant alleged that the non delivery of the refill on 12.6.2010 and the appellant very well can prove the delivery by producing counterfoil or carbon copy of the payment receipt/voucher for the collection of cylinder refill charges or connected account books for the day regarding the collection of payment for the supply of refill cylinder for various customers, though these were not done by the appellant.

8.           In those circumstances we are of the view, the complainant has proved his case before the District Forum, Coimbatore and thereby the District Forum has come to the proper conclusion regarding deficiency in service and as for as the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- is concerned since the appellant being the distributor of gas cylinder to the complainant and delivered the same regularly from the year 2008 under Ex.B.2 for the non-delivery of the cylinder in time for the month of May 2010, an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation somewhat in higher side, and we are inclined to reduce the same for Rs.5000/- and in other respects, the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore to be sustained, accordingly

       In the result, this appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC 33/2011 dated 15.12.2011 reducing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/- in other respects the order of the District Forum, it is confirmed.

        No order as to costs in this appeal.

       The directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        A.K.ANNAMALAI           

        MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER