BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 203/2009

Dated : 31.05.2010

Complainant:

Baiju. S, Ayaniyarathala (H), Chemboor, Vilangara, Ottasekharamangalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 125.

Opposite parties:

1. Ramachandran, Deputy Manager (LPG-Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Proprietor, Ammal Agencies, Indane Distributors, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Kattakkada.

(By adv. George James)

This O.P having been heard on 12.04.2010, the Forum on 31.05.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant's gas cylinder was stolen on 05.02.2009. Immediately he has filed a complaint before police authorities and registered a crime as 44/09 u/s 379 CPC and informed the matter to the opposite parties with application for another cylinder and he has produced all the documents as per the opposite party's demands. The opposite parties charged Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for allowing another cylinder. At the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 2,000/- the opposite party assured the complainant that on production of the U.N Report they will refund the excess amount charged from the complainant. Complainant stated that actual price of the gas cylinder is only Rs. 1,250/-. The opposite parties charged only Rs. 1,250/- when he purchased another additional cylinder from the opposite party on 07.09.2009. The complainant has produced the U.N Report regarding the theft before the opposite parties, but the opposite parties never turned up to refund Rs. 750/- to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

1^st opposite party in this case is Deputy Manager (LPG Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 2^nd opposite party is the proprietor, Ammal Agencies. Both opposite parties filed their version. 1^st opposite party stated that the complaint should have been filed against the Indian Oil Corporation and not against the 1^st opposite party in his personal capacity. The allegation of the complainant that he should have been charged only Rs. 1,250/- for issuing a new cylinder in place of the cylinder he had lost is baseless and not true. As per Clause 4 of the Circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, being Circular No. 1/2008-09 dated 18.07.2008, the revised penal rate to be charged from a consumer for issuing a replacement cylinder in place of a cylinder lost by the consumer has been fixed at Rs. 2,000/- in case of a 14.2 kg cylinder, while the security deposit to be collected while issuing a fresh/additional 14.2 kg cylinder has been fixed at Rs. 1,250/-. So there was nothing wrong or illegal in asking the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- at the time of issuing a replacement cylinder for the cylinder the complainant had lost, while charging only Rs. 1,250/- at the time of issuing an additional cylinder. The complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party with a request to provide a cylinder as replacement for the cylinder he had lost. In the request, he had stated that his cylinder had been stolen when it was kept at his friend's house. The complainant had also annexed a copy of the complaint he had filed at the Aryacode Police Station regarding the loss of the LPG Cylinder. On being satisfied that it was genuine case of loss of cylinder, the 1^st opposite party, as per the rules of the Indian Oil Corporation governing such cases, had made an endorsement on the complaint instructing the concerned distributor, the 2^nd opposite party, to issue a replacement cylinder to the complainant, on the basis of the police F.I.R, after collecting Rs. 2,000/- towards Value Recovery. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- that the 1^st opposite party had instructed the 2^nd opposite party to recover from the complainant was the amount that the Indian Oil Corporation has stipulated vide the above mentioned circular, being Circular 1/2008-09 dated 18.07.2008, as penal rate in case of loss of cylinder by the consumer. Therefore there is nothing illegal in the 1^st opposite party instructing the 2^nd opposite party to charge Rs. 2,000/- for issuing a replacement cylinder. The 1^st opposite party was merely performing his duties as has been stipulated by his employer, the Indian Oil Corporation and in the absence of any illegality or criminality in his action he cannot be held personally liable for the same. The 2^nd opposite party is an authorized distributor of the Indian Oil Corporation and he is bound to follow the rules and regulations laid down by the Corporation. Therefore the 2^nd opposite party cannot be faulted for charging Rs. 2,000/-, the penal rate stipulated by the Corporation, for issuing a replacement cylinder. The allegation of the complainant that he was told by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of issuing the replacement cylinder that the excess money collected from him would be returned when the police submits the enquiry report in Court is denied for want of knowledge. Nevertheless it is submitted that the 2^nd opposite party could not have made such a statement as the penal rate of Rs. 2,000/- in the event of loss of cylinder is the amount fixed by the Indian Oil corporation, and the 2^nd opposite party being a distributor appointed by the Corporation and being bound by the rules and regulations of the Corporation has no power to issue a replacement cylinder to the complainant at a rate lower than what is stipulated by the Indian Oil Corporation.

2^nd opposite party in their version submitted that 2^nd opposite party has been carrying on the business of sale of the Indian Oil Corporation's LPG for the past 3 years, efficiently and to the utmost satisfaction of all its consumers and that there has never been an occasion where a consumer has felt aggrieved about the quality of service provided by the 2^nd opposite party. Complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party with a request addressed to the Deputy Manager, Indian Oil Corporation for supply of a cylinder as a replacement of the cylinder he had lost. In the request he had stated that his cylinder had been stolen when it was kept at his friend's house. The complainant has also annexed a copy of the complaint he had filed at the Aryacode police station regarding the loss of the LPG cylinder. In the margin of the representation made to the 1^st opposite party there is a specific order of the Deputy Manager (LPG-Sale), Indian Oil Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1^st opposite party, to issue a cylinder @ Rs. 2,000/- against V.R, on the basis of police FIR attached. Based on this order, the 1^st opposite party had issued the cylinder to the complainant after realizing Rs. 2,000/- as value recovery. The role of the 2^nd opposite party is only that of a distributor i.e; to sell the LPG of the Indian Oil Corporation at the rate fixed by the Corporation in the cylinders provided by the Indian Oil Corporation. Clause 4 of the Circular No. 1/2008-09 dated 18.07.2008 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to all Indane distributors has fixed the penal rate to be collected from a consumer for loss of 14.2 kg cylinder at Rs. 2,000/-. the same circular has also fixed the security deposit to be collected from a consumer while issuing a new/additional 14.2 kg cylinder at Rs. 1,250/-. So there was nothing wrong or illegal in the 2^nd opposite party in charging Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for issuing a replacement for the cylinder the complainant had lost, while charging only Rs. 1,250/- when issuing an additional cylinder to the complainant. He was merely charging the rates that the Indian Oil Corporation had stipulated and nothing more. The complainant cannot have a grievance on this account. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- collected from the complainant has also been duly remitted with the Indian Oil Corporation. The allegation of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had assured him that he will return the excess amount collected, when the police enquiry report is submitted before the court is absolutely false and hence denied. The 2^nd opposite party had given no such assurances. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- collected from the complainant is as per the orders of the 1^st opposite party and in consonance with the rates fixed by the Indian Oil Corporation vide Circular No. 1/2008-09 dated 18.07.2008 and hence the 2^nd opposite party could not have given any such undertaking. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant in this case has filed proof affidavit and produced 13 documents. Opposite parties did not cross examine the complainant. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Opposite parties submitted that they have no oral evidence. 2^nd opposite party has produced 4 documents.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 13 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P13. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged since has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. From the side of opposite parties 4 documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D4. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties charged an excess amount of Rs. 750/- from the complainant for getting another cylinder instead of his lost cylinder. Opposite party stated that they have charged the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as per the circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The circular is marked as Ext. D2. As per Ext. D2, rate for cylinder/PR penal rate is seen as Rs. 2,000/- for 14.2 kg cylinder. Ext. P2 is the copy of payment receipt of Rs. 2,000/- for the cylinder. Nowhere in this document it is stated that the amount is received as penalty rate. Ext. P6 is the copy of payment receipt of deposit of cylinder, ie. Rs. 1,250/-, other documents produced by the complainant are documents relating to the theft. Ext. P13 is the U.N report i.e; final police report. As per Ext. D3 document the 2^nd opposite party remitted the amount received from the complainant to the Indian Oil Corporation. In this case opposite parties have no right to charge penal rate for the lost cylinder. There is no wilful negligence or fault from the side of the complainant for the loss of the cylinder. In this case opposite parties produced the policy guidelines of LPG Marketing Volume II. In that document clause 8.2.3 states that “customers responsible for loss of cylinders and Prs are required to lodge an FIR and obtain a clear final report from the police authorities. They may apply to the area office with these reports for replacement of the equipment along with an affidavit. They will be charged a tariff rate of Rs. 900/- per cylinder and Rs. 150/- per pressure regulator and release of equipments will be made against Tariff Recovery Voucher. As per this policy guidelines, the opposite parties have no right to receive excess amount. The complainant has only to pay Rs. 900/- + Rs. 150/-, i.e; Rs. 1,050/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 950/- from the 1^st opposite party. Though the complainant, who has approached the Forum and conducted the case in person, has claimed only Rs. 750/- as refund, he is eligible for refund of Rs. 950/- from the 1^st opposite party as it is a settled position that Consumer Forum can grant reliefs not prayed for by the complainant provided the same are justified on the merits. In this case the 2^nd opposite party charged the amount from the complainant as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party is liable to refund the amount to the complainant. From the above said discussion we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of 1^st opposite party. Hence the 1^st opposite party is liable to refund the amount and pay compensation to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party can claim the amount from the Indian Oil Corporation since the amount was remitted to Indian Oil Corporation by the 2^nd opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 950/- to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall also be paid.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of May 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 203/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter addressed to opposite party

P2 - Copy of circular No. 1/2008-09

P3 - Copy of subscription voucher

P4 - Copy of details of consumer

P5 - Copy of terms & conditions governing the loan of Indane

Cylinders and Regulators to customers.

P6 - Copy of consumer's gas book.

P7 - Copy of paper cutting

P8 - Copy of letter addressed to opposite party.

P9 - Copy of FIR

P10 - Copy of bill No. 4504

P11 - Copy of customer's details

P12 - Copy of bill No. 14763.

P13 - Copy of UN Report

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Indane distributorship agreement

D2 - Copy of circular No. 1/2008-09

D3 - Copy of domestic & non-domestic monthly deposits/tariff collection statement.

D4 - Copy of terms & conditions governing the loan of Indane

Cylinders and Regulators to customers.

PRESIDENT