Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/201/2013

T.Chandran ,Proprietor,Jaycee Gas Agency & another - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Santhanamurthy & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Vijayaraghavan

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE  TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   CHENNAI

    

PRESENT:  THIRU. J. JAYARAM                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     TMT.    P. BACKIAVATHY       MEMBER

 

F.A.  No.  201  of  2013

 

(Against the Order in C.C. No. 35 / 2011, dated 30-05-2013

 on the file of the DCDRF, Cuddalore)

DATED THIS THE   10^th   DAY  OF  DECEMBER, 2015

 

1). T. Chandran, Proprietor,

    Jaycee Gas Agency,

    Indane LPG Distributors,

    No. 0/9, Palmalainathar Nagar,

    Ayiyarmadam,

    Vriddhalachalam – 606 001                       

 

2) Narayanan,

    Cylinder Delivery Staff,

    Jaycee Gas Agency,

    No. 0/9, Palamalainathar Nagar,                       ..          Appellants /

    Ayiyarmadam,                                                                  Opposite Parties 1&2

    Vriddhachalam – 606 001                                 

 

-Vs-

1. S. Santhamurthy,

    S/o Singaravel,

    No. 345/354-A, Main Road,

    Vayalur,

    Vriddhachalam Town,

    Cuddalore District – 606 001               ..          1^st Respondent/Complainant

                                                 

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

    Nungambakkam High road,

    Chennai – 600 034

 

3.    The District Supply Officer &

    Consumer Protection Officer                             Respondents 2 & 3 /

    Cuddalore District                            ..                   Opposite Parties 3 & 4

 

           This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 08-09-2015, and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for appellant               :     Mr. A.S. Vijayaragavan, Advocate 

Counsel for respondents          :     Called absent

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

            This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in CC. 35/2011 dated 28.05.2013 allowing the complaint.

        2.  The case of the complainant is that, the gas connection vide Consumer No. 15560 stands in the name of the complainant’s father who  is getting the gas connection from the 1^st opposite party.  He booked gas cylinder with the 1^st opposite party on 02-05-2011. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 16-05-2011 to know the status of his gas connection, he was told that he would get the cylinder only by 18-05-2010 and on 18-05-2011 he was told that he would get the cylinder by 22-05-2011.  On many occasions the 1^st opposite party did not supply gas to the consumers in time and the said cylinders are given to other individuals. The complainant hence sent a complaint on 18-05-2011 to the District Collector and District Revenue Officer and District Supply Officer, in  pursuance of which, cylinder was supplied to the complainant on 19-05-2011. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the score of delay in supplying the gas cylinder giving rise to the present complaint. 

         3.  According to the opposite parties, the 1^st opposite party used to deliver gas cylinders to the consumers based on the supply he receives from the Indian Oil corporation. Therefore the 1^st opposite party books the requirements of the consumer daily during office hours in the computer and billing were made on daily basis.  The complainant’s house was locked on 18-05-2011 and hence it was brought back and was delivered on 19-05-2011 and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and there is no justification for demanding exorbitant compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

        4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint by directing the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, with costs of Rs.1,000/-, holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties.

        5.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties  have preferred this appeal.  

        6.   Two additional documents were filed in the appeal on the side of the opposite parties and marked as Ex.B2 and B3. Ex.B2 is the complaint made by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent dated 5-6-2014; Ex. B3 is the reply to Ex.B2, dated 11-06-2014.

        7.  Admittedly, the 1^st respondent/complainant has booked for gas cylinder with the 1^st opposite party on 02-05-2011 and the same was supplied to him on 19-05-2011. The dispute is delayed delivery of gas cylinder to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party. The contention of the complainant is that the bill for supply of his gas cylinder was raised on 17-05-2011 by the opposite party and therefore it has to be   delivered to him on the same day but  the same was not delivered to him on 18-05-2011 in spite of his personal visit to the 1^st opposite party to know the status of his booking.  But, the gas cylinder was delivered belatedly to the complainant only on 19-11-2011.  On perusal of Exhibit A-11, it is clearly evidenced that the cash memo/bill was raised on 17-05-2011 and Exhibit A-12 establishes that the same was delivered on 19-05-2011.

8.         Per contra, the 1^st opposite party has contended that the complainant’s house was locked and hence the cylinder could not be delivered to the complainant on the date the billing.  But, the 1^st opposite party has failed to prove the same by producing and placing documentary evidence before the District Forum. Apart from that the 1^st opposite party has not given any satisfactory or acceptable reasons as to why and what prevented them from informing the complainant about the fact that his house was locked when the delivery was attempted when the complainant met the 1^st opposite party on    18-05-2011 in person.  In view of the above and in the absence of documentary evidence we are unable to accept the contentions of the appellants for the delay in delivery of gas cylinder to the complainant. Considering the material records, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

9.         It is pertinent to note that the 1^st opposite party is the proprietor / distributor of the Gas Agency and the 2^nd opposite party is only a delivery boy and so the complaint is not maintainable as against the 2^nd opposite party, hence the complaint has to be dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party.

           10.   As regards the award of compensation, we find that the delay in delivery of the gas cylinder is only 2 days and as such we are of the opinion that award of token compensation will be just and reasonable. Considering all these, we feel that award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation  for mental agony is on the higher side and we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs. 5,000/-, and grant of interest is unwarranted; and therefore the order of the District Forum is to be  modified accordingly.

            11.   In the result, the appeal of the 1^st appellant / 1^st opposite party is partly allowed, and the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- only (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant, and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- in the complaint. The appeal of the 2^nd appellant / 2^nd opposite party is allowed and the complaint is dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

   P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     J. JAYARAM                                                                                                         

                   MEMBER                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER