Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows: The complainant is a customer of Royal Gas Agencies, Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta is the resident of Mele Vettipuram, Ring Road so adjacent to Noor Masjid Church. On 16.09.2010 he has got gas connection from the opposite party and the opposite party only served the gas cylinder for 2 or 3 times only. According to him, up to 23.10.2014 he fetched the cylinder from the office go-down at Mannaramala of opposite party. On 26.11.2014 due to the petitioner’s unhealth he enquired about a gas cylinder but it is told that the gas cylinder can be obtain only from the go-down of the opposite party and opposite party adds that if the cylinder had not taken before 4 p.m, the bill issued would have to be cancelled. On 26.11.2014 and 29.11.2014 the complainant filed 2 petitions before the District Collector and Taluk Supply Officer respectively. Even though the opposite party given an assurance of serving the gas cylinder but even on 22.12.2014 the opposite party did not handed over the cylinder to the complainant. The complainant again stated that, he is an aged person of 66 years and suffering diabetic, hypertension and cholesterol diseases. Moreover, he and his wife alone are residing in his house. According to him, the opposite party is distributing the cylinder to the neighbor area of complainant house. He requested this Forum to give a direction to opposite parties for serving the gas cylinder at his house, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, cost of Rs.20,000/- as the hospital expenses of vehicle accident, Rs.10,000/- as the hotel expenditure and a cost of Rs.2,000/- as court expenditure.
3. This Forum entertains this complaint and issue notice to the opposite party and the opposite party enter appearance and filed their version. The version of the opposite party is stated as follows.
4. According to this opposite party, this petition is not sustainable either in law or in fact. According to this opposite party, there was an understanding with this complainant to the effect that the complainant would have receive the gas cylinder from the go-down of the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant has given a written consent to that effect. Even up to 20.11.2014 the complainant directly came to the office and taken delivery of the gas cylinder. The opposite party again stated that, as per the present system of Indian Oil Corporation when a cash bill is issued in favour of a customer the customer has either taken the delivery of the gas cylinder or he has to cancel the cash bill from the Indian Oil Corporation’s agency office. This opposite party contented that when gas cylinder is distributing to the customers the delivery boys of the agency carries the process bill and at the time of delivery the customer signed the counterfoil. The said counterfoil is handed over to the agency and then only the subsidy process would have stated in the gas agency office. According to him, on 20.11.2014 this petitioner booked a refill gas cylinder and on 26.11.2014 the petitioner remitted the cash for the cylinder and accepted the cash bill. On the same day at the evening time the complainant by telephone informed the opposite party with regard to the non availability of vehicle so that he was not in a position to take the delivery of the cylinder on that day. The opposite party again stated that on 29.11.2014 the complainant filed a complaint to the Supply Officer without taking the delivery of the cylinder. According to him, in reply to this petition the supply officer concerned give a direction to cancel the cash bill dated 26.11.2014 or to take delivery of the cylinder as per this cash bill. All these facts are informed to the complainant by the Taluk Supply Office. The opposite party again stated that if the complainant opts any of the above direction he would have serve a gas cylinder as per the prevailing direction of the Indian Oil Corporation. According to the opposite party the complainant has no right to get any kind of relief sought through this complaint. This complaint filed against the opposite party is lack of bonafide and only for creating difficulties to the opposite party. Moreover, this complaint is not sustainable also. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
5. When we peruse the complaint, the version and the records of both sides we frame the following issues.
- Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether the opposite parties remitted any deficiency in service against the complaint?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant files a proof affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and marked Ext.A1 to A7. At the time of cross examination through him Ext.B1 also marked. But on the other hand, the opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and no further documents was marked at the time of his examination. Ext.A1 is the copy of the complaint filed before the District Collector, Pathanamthitta dated 26.11.2014. Ext.A2 is the bill issued by the opposite party dated 26.11.2014. Ext.A3 is the copy of Gas Passbook, Ext. A4 series is the medical bills, Ext.A5 is the copy of Election Identity Card. The copy of Ration Card is marked as Ext.A6 and Ext.A7 series (Page No. 1 to 22) is the copy of records send by District Supply Officer as per RTI Act and Ext.B1 a consent letter dated 16.09.2010 issued by PW1 in favour of the opposite party. After closing of the evidence, we heard both the parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 to 3 : For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No.1 to 3 together. The complainant definite case is that, he is a customer of 1st opposite party. As per Ext.A1 it is evident to see that as a customer of 1st opposite party due to the deficiency in service of opposite party he filed a petition before the District Collector, Pathanamthitta on 26.11.2014, The cash bill dated 26.11.2014 which is marked as Ext.A2 and gas pass book dated 16.09.2010 issued from opposite party i.e., Ext.A3 all are shows that the complainant is a customer under opposite party and he paid cash for the delivery of a new cylinder. The opposite party raised a contention to the effect that, the case is not maintainable before the Forum and not sustainable in the light of evidence discussed here. We are not agreeing the contention of the opposite party and found point No.1 in favour of the complainant. When we go in to the details of the evidence in this case the main question to be considered is whether the complainant is eligible to get the door delivery of the gas cylinder. It is come out in evidence that, the complainant signed the Ext.B1 document. As per this Ext.B1 document it is clear that, the complainant was ready and willing to take the gas cylinder from the go down of opposite parties’ office at the time of taking the registration as a customer of opposite party. The opposite party was a definite case to show that, as per Ext.B1 documents the opposite party register the complainant as a customer of opposite party 1. On the basis of the present position of the Indian Oil Corporation the opposite party has a liability to deliver the gas cylinder at the door of the customer. If the residence of the customer is within the free serving area of the agency the customer is not liable to pay any transporting charge at all. Heard both sides admit that, the residence of the complainant is within the free service distribution area of the opposite party. If it be so, what is the reliability of Ext.B1 in favour of the opposite party? It is clear that, the opposite party in his deposition as DW1 it is admitted that, at present the residence area of the complainant is comes under the free delivery area of the opposite party. If it be so, we can clearly come to the conclusion that the opposite party is duty bound to deliver the gas cylinder at the door of the complainant.
8. One of the main contentions raised by the opposite party at the time of his version is that, even though the complainant remitted the price of gas cylinder and receive the cash bill he did not produce this cash bill at the gas godown for the gas cylinder delivery. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that either the complainant taken delivery of the gas as per the said cash bill or cancel the said cash bill then only the opposite party would have to issue a subsequent cylinder in favour of the complainant.
9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant he submitted that, the complainant is a senior citizen and suffering so many diseases as mentioned earlier. If it be so, it is the paramount duty of the opposite party to consider the request of the complainant and serve the gas cylinder as requested. It is come out in evidence that, on 26.11.2014 he paid cash for a new cylinder but no gas cylinder has been issued to the complainant.
10. According to the complainant in cross examination he stated, “Ext.A2 പ്രകാരമുള്ള cylinder എനിക്ക് ലഭിക്കാത്തതാണ് ഈ പരാതിയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനം. Ext.A2 bill ഞാൻ office -ൽ നിന്നാണ് എടുത്തത് Ext.A2 bill 26.11.2015 date വച്ചതാണ്. അതിനുശേഷവും ഞാൻ gas book ചെയ്യുകയും ആയത് ലഭിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുതിയ booking അനുസരിച്ചാണ് എനിക്ക് പിന്നീട് delivery കിട്ടിയത് ഞാൻ Ext.A2 bill പ്രകാരമുള്ള booking cancel ചെയ്യുകയോ gas പോയി എടുക്കുകയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല നിങ്ങള് godown - ൽ പോയി എടുക്കുകയോ, cancel ചെയ്യുകയോ ചെയ്യാതിരുന്നതുകൊണ്ടാണ് ടി വിതരണം നടക്കാത്തത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയല്ലേ”? (Q) “എൻറെ ആരോഗ്യം മോശമായതിനാൽ ആണ് എനിക്ക് gas എടുക്കാൻ കഴിയാതിരുന്നത് ”. On the basis of the above deposition it is to see that, if the complainant produced the cash bill the opposite party was ready and willing to handover the gas cylinder. As per the prevailing system of law of the gas agency it is their duty to deliver the gas cylinder at the door of the customer if the customer’s house is within the agency limit. In this case, there is a cogent and conclusive evidence to show that the complainant’s house is situated within the operation area of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party should have delivered the cylinder at the door of the complainant. Then the next question to be considered is whether the cash bill or the cancellation of the cash bill and creation of new cash bill is required for the delivery of the cylinder in question. When considering the evidence of this case especially as per Ext.A7 series page 19 and 20 we can see that, the Dist. Supply Officer Pathanamthitta issued a letter dated 30.03.2015 to the opposite party and in that letter the DSO has given a specific direction. “നിലവിലുള്ള പാചക വാതക വിതരണനിയമപ്രകാരം ഉപഭോക്താക്കള്ക്ക് സിലിണ്ടർ വീട്ടിൽ എത്തിച്ചു കൊടുക്കുന്നതിന് ഗ്യാസ് ഏജൻസി ബാദ്ധ്യസ്ഥരാണ്. ആയതിനാൽ താങ്കള് ഏജൻസിയിലെ എല്ലാ ഉപഭോക്താക്കള്ക്കും പാചക വാതക സിലിണ്ടർ അവരവരുടെ വീട്ടിൽ എത്തിച്ചുകൊടുക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. അതോടൊപ്പം പരാതിക്കിടയില്ലാത്ത വിധം ഏജൻസിയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനം നടത്തേണ്ടതാണെന്നും അറിയിക്കുന്നു”. As per the same Ext.A7 series page No.18, the Taluk Supply Officer has filed a report to this effect. “ഗോഡൌണിൽ നിന്നും നേരിട്ട് സിലിണ്ടർ എടുക്കുന്നതിലേക്കായി നൽകിയിട്ടുള്ള ബിൽ ആയതിനാൽ തിരികെ നൽകി റദ്ദു ചെയ്തശേഷം സിലിണ്ടർ വീട്ടിൽ എത്തിച്ചു നൽകാമെന്ന് ഏജൻസി ഉടമ അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട് ”. It is an admitted fact to the effect that, a gas agency can issue gas cylinder only at the time of the production of cash bill, here also the complainant is bound to produced the cash bill i.e. Ext.A2 for the receipt of new cylinder. According to the complainant, in the testimony in cross examination, it is come out in evidence that, the reason for the non-production of the cash bill is due to his illness. This explanation is not satisfactory and we cannot believe the explanation of the complainant in this aspect. Though the complainant requested to allow compensation from the opposite party, the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to allow any compensation as requested. It is also proved that, even after the date of institution of complaint before this Forum the complainant accepted gas cylinder from the opposite party as per the prevailing procedure. In the light of the evidence before this Forum, we don’t think that the opposite party committed any grave deficiency in service against the complainant but it is to see that the opposite party can very well redress the complaint of the complainant without agitating more. As a licensed dealer of essential commodity, which is more useful to the general public, the opposite party should be duty bound and sincere to redress the grievances of their customers. Hence this petition is partly allowed and point No.2 and 3 found accordingly.
11. In the result, we pass the following:
(1) The opposite party is directed to issue a gas cylinder to the
complainant in his house premises subject to the production of
Ext.A2 cash bill. The complainant is also directed to produce
Ext.A2 cash bill before the opposite party within one week from
the date of receipt of this order.
(2) The opposite party is herein after directed to deliver the gas
cylinder within the premises of the complainant’s house if the
complainant booked the cylinder in accordance with the
prevailing law and direction of the authority concerned.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,500/-
(Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant as
the cost of this case from the date of filing of this petition i.e.
05.01.2015 with 10% interest till its realization.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2016.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Salim Sulaiman
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the complaint filed before the District Collector, Pathanamthitta
dated 26.11.2014.
A2 : Bill issued by the opposite party dated 26.11.2014.
A3 : Copy of Gas Passbook.
A4 series : medical bills.
A5 : Copy of Election Identity Card.
A6 : Copy of Ration Card
A7 series (Page No. 1 to 22) : Copy of records send by District Supply Officer
as per RTI Act.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : M. George Varghese
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Letter dated 16.09.2010 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Salim Sulaiman, Alankarathu Veedu, Male Vettipuram,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) Royal Gas Agencies, St.Stephen Building, Makkamkunnu,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
