Order No. 16 dt. 30.11.2016
This is an application u/s. 12 of C.P. Act filed by the petitioner, Sovan Kumar Paul stating that he is a consumer of HP Gas Service being Consumer No. 602037 and the Distributor is O.P. No.1 in which jurisdiction he was residing in the address. The petitioner booked the gas on 19.08.2015, Booking No. 5333217 and the Cash Memo No. 19990269 dt. 06.09.2015. He received the gas personally on going to the office of the O.P. No.1 on 30.09.2015 and he was mishandled by the employees of the O.P. No.1. He paid Rs. 656 and asked the O.P. No.1 why the gas was not delivered. Stating this fact he made a prayer for compensation of Rs. 100000/- for non-delivery of the gas for more than one month.
O.P. No.1 appeared before this Forum through his Ld.Advocate and filed written version denying all the material allegation contending inter alia that he is not a ‘Consumer’ of LPG and his Consumer No. is 602037. He is not entitled to get any compensation and the petitioner is not mishandled by any of the employees of O.P. No.1 or O.P. himself.
It is the case of the O.P. that the petitioner is a background of political ruling party and showing his power and demanded extra cylinder. He is not residing in the address and he misbehaved with the office staff of the O.P. No.1. It is the further case that the petitioner demanded extra cylinder. So the case of the petitioner must be dismissed.
To prove this case petitioner filed his License Book of Gas Service from where it reveals that the petitioner Sovan Kumar Paul as a Consumer under LPG ID being No. 291108034402043 and his Consumer No. 602037and the distributor of the said gas is Uttaran Gas Service i.e. O.P. No.1 and the address in the said document reflect within the district of Malda of Mokdumpur Mouja.
On the basis of the same following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together, as they are co-related, for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Ld. advocate for the O.P., at the time of argument did not raise any point regarding the maintainability of the case. On the other hand from the petition of complaint and from the written statement filed by the O.P. it is established that the petitioner is a consumer and O.P. No.1 is the distributor of gas and the license stands in the name of the petitioner and O.P.No.1 is bound to supply the gas as per the license and the case is well maintainable.
Not only that Ld.Advocate of the O.P. filed xerox copy of “view Cylinder Booking History Sheet of the petitioner.” It is established that the petitioner booked gas cylinder and his Order No. 533217 on 19.08.2015 and the cash memo prepared on 06.09.2015 in the office of the O.P. No.1 and subsidy amount of Rs.227.90 deposited in the State Bank Account of the petitioner and the cash memo No. 99920 and the gas was delivered on 30.09.2015 and the case was filed by the petitioner on 27.11.2015. Therefore, it is palpably clear that after receiving of the said cylinder he filed this case in this Forum and it is
the rules of the HPCL or any Indian Gas Company that the gas will be delivered after the intimation to the customer within 72 hours maximum.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 tried to draw our attention that the cylinder was delivered and no cause of action arises to file this case by the petitioner.
It is true that the petitioner disclosed some allegation to some extent in his petition which is not triable by this Forum but the fact remains that the cylinder was not delivered in time.
It is also established that the petitioner is a consumer and he has a valid license book for the consumption of a cylinder and the O.P. No.1 is a distributor name and style as ‘Uttaran H.P. Gas Service’ 7 Station Road, Subhaspally, P.S. English Bazar, Malda. The xerox copy of the documents
Ld.Advocate at the time of argument submits that this customer already transferred his gas from this station to Kolkata and submits for dismissal of the case.
We are not agree with the submission of the Ld.Advocate of O.P. No.1. From the xerox copy filed by the O.P. it reveals except the booking of 19.08.2015 the other cylinders of the earlier dates were delivered within one week of the preparation of the cash memos. The exorbitant delay of 24 days may be caused on various reasons but no documents filed by the O.P. that his delivery man went to the address of the petitioner and found the room was under lock and key.
The only denial is not sufficient when the consumer labeled one grievance for non-delivery of cylinder in time. It is true that the authority has inspectors and other officers to look into all these things and they are competent enough to ventilate the grievances of the consumers.
We hold that there is a delay of delivery of gas but why the delay is not established. Considering this aspect we did not want to pass any order regarding the deficiency as the delay may caused by the petitioner himself or the agency himself and we dismissed the case but at the same time we want to inform to all the O.Ps by sending the judgement, basically in this case when the O.P. No. 3 and O.P. No.2 unrepresented.
In the result, the case fails.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No.87 /2015 is hereby dismissed without any cost.
A copy of the order be given to petitioner and O.P. No.1 free of cost and the copy of the order be sent to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 by Registered Post.
