DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 59_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 2.05.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 3.4.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Sanjib Barik, Vill. & P.O Bermajur, P.S Sandesh Khali, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin-743442.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : Saaptarshi Gas Agency (Bharat Gas), Basanti Bazar, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The whole drift of complainant’s case is that the complainant is a BPL Card Holder, having a domestic gas connection with O.P Distributor since 20.2.2012. The O.P is a LPG Distributor. The complainant wanted to have his gas connection transferred to another distributor near his residence for his convenience and, therefore, he applied for that purpose on 18.2.2017 to the O.P . But more than six months have passed away and the transfer has not yet been effected, causing untold misery and harassment to the complainant by the O.P. Hence, this case by the complainant ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ,Distributor.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is stated by him that the complainant did not comply the guidelines of transfer and, therefore, the transfer has not been effected. According to him, the complainant is required to produce the cylinder and pressure regulator at the time of filing the application for transfer . But as he did not produce the cylinder and the regulator ,the transfer was not effected. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and the complainant is not entitled to get any order for compensation etc. in the instant case.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have filed evidence on affidavits and the same are kept in the record. The questionnaires and replies filed herein are also kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 and 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties . Perused the complaint, written statement and the evidences on affidavit filed by the parties.
Considered all these.
On perusal of the evidences and materials on record it is found that some undisputed facts have cropped up on the surface. The undisputed facts are : (i) a petition for transfer of gas connection was filed by the complainant on 18.2.2017 (ii) the said petition was received by the O.P and (iii) gas connection has not been transferred even after expiry of one year since the date of filing the said application.
It has been argued on behalf of the O.P that the consumer is required to observe some formalities in order to have the gas connection transferred in accordance with the Clause no.12 of the conditions written on the reverse of “SV/TV/PA-FORM”.
Clause 12 thereof runs thus ,”12. The company as well as the consumer shall be at the liberty to terminate this contract at any time by giving 15 days’ notice in writing. On the termination of this contract, the consumer shall forthwith return the equipments to the company and/or the distributor whether or not the cylinder contains any gas and the company or the distributor shall thereafter refund the balance of the deposit made by the consumer with the company after deducting therefrom such amounts, if any, as may be due to the company”.
The condition as mentioned just above makes it clear that the consumer shall forthwith return the equipments to the company or the distributor on the termination of the contract. Under such circumstances, the consumer i.e the complainant herein is required to return the equipments i.e the gas cylinder and the pressure regulator to the O.P whenever he made application for transfer of gas connection. It is the case of the O.P that the complainant did not produce the cylinder and regulator before him and ,therefore, the transfer of gas connection has not been effected. The complainant has nowhere stated in his complaint that he produced the said equipments before the O.P and that the O.P refused to accept the same. In the circumstances, we feel no difficulty to hold that the complainant did not produce those equipments before the O.P at the time of filing the application for transfer before the O.P. A copy of the transfer application has also been filed by the complainant before this Forum and the same has also been brought on record. It is mentioned in that application that the complainant has produced some documents and the names of those documents are clearly mentioned therein . But the said application does not mention that the equipments i.e the cylinder and regulator were also produced before the O.P.
Regards being had to all these facts and circumstances on record, we do not feel any kind of hesitation to hold that the complainant did not produce the equipments before the O.P in compliance with the Rules and Regulations of the Oil Company and, therefore, the transfer of his connection has not been effected by the O.P. As the formalities have not been properly complied with by the complainant, we cannot say that the O.P has been guilty of deficiency in service in not causing transfer of the gas connection to the place as desired by the complainant.
But the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P lies somewhere else. The application for transfer of gas connection was made by the complainant on 18.2.2017. Since then about one year has passed away and the said application has not been disposed of by the O.P as yet. The principle of natural justice demands that the application should be disposed of within the reasonable time ,but that has not been done by the O.P. The O.P should have intimated the complainant about the follow-up action of the application filed by the complainant. He could have directed the complainant to produce the equipments i.e the gas cylinder and the regulator within a time fixed by him and if the same is not produced by the complainant, he i.e the O.P should have disposed of the application. In that case, it could not have been said that the O.P committed any kind of deficiency in service . But that thing having not been done by the O.P, we feel constrained to say that the O.P has committed deficiency in service by not disposing of the complainant’s application for transfer within a reasonable time and that he has thereby caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is also nonetheless responsible for his laches; he should have produced the gas cylinder and the regulator before the O.P at the time of filing the application for transfer. So, the part played by the complainant for causing delay in transfer of his gas connection cannot be overlooked.
Regards being had to all these facts and circumstances on record as discussed above, we deem it fit and proper to pass following orders and the order is passed accordingly hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.2000/- only.
The O.P is directed to cause transfer of gas connection of the complainant and to do all other lawful formalities within a period of 15 days from this order ,provided the complainant will produce the cylinder, regulator and other papers ,if not produced earlier, within the aforesaid period .
If the complainant fails to produce the gas cylinder , the regulator and the requisite papers within the aforesaid period before the O.P, the complaint will stand dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, no order as to compensation is passed herein.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
We / I agree.
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
Member Member President
