IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 01/2012 (Filed on 02.01.2012)
Between:
T.N. Bhanu,
Thanungattil Veedu,
Chenneerkara P.O.,
Pathanamthitta,
Pin – 689 503. … Complainant.
And:
Royal Indane Services,
Indane Distributors,
St. Stephen’s Building,
Makkamkunnu,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. K. Sailesh Kumar) … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant was a consumer of Saroj Gas Agency, Pathanamthitta from 30.08.1991 to 12.01.1994. Thereafter he transferred his gas connection to Royal Indane Service Agency, Pathanamthitta of the opposite party on 13.01.1994 and he is continuing as a consumer of the opposite party since from 13.01.1994 onwards. The complainant’s house is situated on the side of a panchayat road having sufficient width so as to ply even heavy vehicles like lorry. While the complainant was a consumer of Saroj Gas Agency, Pathanamthitta, they delivered the cylinder at the complainant’s residence. Thereafter when the complainant become a consumer of the opposite party, they also delivered the cylinder at his residence till 2007. Thereafter they are not delivering the cylinder at his residence. Now the opposite party is delivering the cylinders at a place away from his house which is ½ Km from the house of the complainant. So the complainant is compelled to pay ` 40 as auto charges for taking the cylinder to his house which is other than the transporting charges collected by the opposite parties. Complaint of non-delivery of the gas cylinder at his residence was informed to the opposite party on several occasions. But the opposite party has not cared to resolve the grievances of the complainant. Further the opposite party is not supplying the cylinder regularly. The above said acts of the opposite party caused mental agony and other discomforts to the complainant and it is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party for the delivery of gas cylinder at the complainant’s residence regularly.
3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed his version with the following main contentions: Opposite party admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. Opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite party, the road in which the complainant is residing is not a good road having sufficient width and sufficient strength for running vehicles which are used for carrying gas cylinders. The allegation that the complainant had made complaints to the opposite party is false. The complainant never made any complaints about the non-delivery of the cylinders at his residence. Opposite party is supplying the cylinders as per the supply from the company’s plant at Ernakulam. This complaint is filed without any bonafides and the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant. Further opposite party assured in the version that he is prepared to settle the complaints, if any, of the complainant in this regard. On the basis of the above contentions, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with his cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and DW1. Both sides have not adduced any documentary evidence. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party is not supplying gas cylinder at his residence even though he is residing at the side of a road having sufficient width and strength even for driving heavy vehicles like lorry and other vehicles. But the contention of the opposite party is that the road where the complainant is residing is not a good road so as to send vehicles with gas cylinders.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant and one witness adduced oral evidence before this Forum as PWs. 1 and 2. Opposite party also adduced oral evidence as DW1 for establishing his contentions.
8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the oral depositions of PWs. 1 and 2 and as per the depositions, they stated that the opposite party is not supplying gas cylinders at the house of the complainant though there is a good road having sufficient width and strength so as to ply vehicles with gas cylinders. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW1 in chief examination is as follows: “Fsâ hoSv hsc KXm-K-X-tbm-Ky-amb ]©m-b¯v tdmUp-v. t\cs¯ Kymkv knen-À ho«n F¯n-¨n-cp-¶p”.
9. In cross examination, PW1 answered as follows to a question put by the counsel for the opposite party: “ag-¡m-e¯v Cu tdmUn¡qSn Kymkv hn HmSn-¡m³ ]äp-I-bnà F¶p ]d-bp-¶Xv icn-bÔ
10. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW2 in chief examination is as follows: “lÀPn-I-£n-bpsS hoSn-\-Sp-¯mWv Fsâ Xma-kw. F\n¡v FXr-I-£n-bpsS GP³kn-bn \n¶pw Kymkv IW-£-\p-v. R§-fpsS `mK-¯pÅ tdmUv \à tdmUm-Wv. F¶m FXr-I£n Iptd-¡m-e-ambn Kymkv ho«n F¯n¨p Xcp-¶n-Ã………….-]-´fw Kymkv GP³knbn \n¶pw FÃm BgvNbpw Cu hgn-bn-eqsS hml-\-¯n Kymkv sImp hcp-¶pv”.
11. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW2 in the cross examination is as follows: “R§-fpsS tdmUn Hcp Imhp-v. Imhv Ign-ªpÅ `mKw hS-t¡m-«pÅ `mKw tdmUv hoXn Ipd-hp-Å-Xm-sW¶v ]d-bp-¶Xv icn-bà (QA) witness adds. C¶-sebpw AhnsS Tempo h¶v XSn sImp t]mbn. ag-¡m-e¯v Cu tdmUn¡qSn shÅw HgpIn tdmUv k©m-c-tbm-Ky-a-ÃmsX BIp¶p F¶v ]d-bp-¶Xv icn-bà (QA) witness adds. B `mK¯v Icn-¦Â ASp-¡n-bn-«p-v.
12. The above said depositions of PWs.1 and 2 clearly shows that the road condition is good and the opposite party is not supplying the cylinder at the house of the complainant though the road condition is good. In this connection, the following deposition of DW1 (opposite party) is relevant which is as follows: “Rm³ t\cn-«Ã Kymkv \ÂIp-¶-Xv. sXmgn-em-fn-I-fmWv Kymkv hnX-cWw \S-¯p-¶Xv”. This indicates that opposite party’s contention that the road is not good is not sustainable as he is not personally aware of the road condition.
13. In view of the above depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and DW1 clearly establishes that the road condition is good and inspite the opposite party is not delivering gas cylinders at the residence of the complainant and others residing there. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to supply gas cylinders to the complainant and others residing there at their residences without any failure from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize ` 100 (Rupees One hundred only) per cylinder from the opposite party for meeting the additional transporting charge of the complainant for taking the cylinder from the present spot where the opposite party makes the delivery now.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant :
PW1 : T.N. Bhanu.
PW2 : Radhamony.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party :
DW1 : George Varghese.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party :
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) T.N. Bhanu, Thanungattil Veedu, Chenneerkara P.O.,
Pathanamthitta, Pin – 689 503. (2) Royal Indane Services, Indane Distributors,
St. Stephen’s Building, Makkamkunnu,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
