The facts of the case in short is as follows :

1.  The Complainant’s case is that the Complainant is a Consumer of L.P.G. Gas from Serampore Multi Purpose Samabay Samity, Serampore. The O.P. intentionally harassing the Complainant since 01.12.2004. On 24.07.2006 Complainant issued registered letter, he booked L.P.G. Gas three times, i.e. on 01.12.2004, 24.06.2006 and 11.07.2006 on the respective Cash Memo. As the Gas was not delivered the Complainant wrote that letter dated 24.07.2006. But the Complainant did not get proper answer. Later on Complainant issued letter on 10.08.2006 regarding bad condition of Regulator and after 12 days the Regulator was changed.

2.  On 09.02.2012 the Complainant booked Gas through mobile vide Booking No. 258223. On 10.03.2012 Complainant was informed that his booking had been cancelled. The Complainant went to the Office of the O.P. and showed him all the connected papers. The O.P. told that the Riffleman went to his house and his house was closed.

3. Thereafter, the Complainant again booked his Gas on 11.03.2012. The Complainant went to the Office of the Area Manager on 12.03.2012. The Complainant told his fact to Mr. Bimal Kumar Mathur. After that O.P. supplied Gas without any Cash Memo.

4.  On 18.08.2013 Complainant again booked Gas by docket no. 37750 vide Cash Memo No. 4450 and received the Gas on 03.09.2013.

5.  Again Gas was booked on 18.09.2013 by Docket No. 384705. But till today he has not received any Gas. The Complainant lodged complaint before the Area Manager and he got the case on 09.11.2013 without any Cash Memo. He further stated that on 13.11.2013 he came to know from mobile no. 9088324365 that the Gas has been delivered on 20.10.2013.

6.  It is alleged that said dealer is doing black marketing and causing harassment to the Complainant. In this way the Complainant is getting harassed by the act of the O.P.

7.  In this case the Complainant later on filed an amendment petition for argument inserting ‘Delivery Man’ in place of ‘Riffleman’. The amendment petition was allowed. Thereafter, many days have passed concerning amendment matter and lastly, amendment was done. But the Complainant did not file amended plaint.

8.  It appears from the record that on 17.11.2015 the record was put up for judgement but after searching the record one amendment petition was found which was left unheard. In this way the case has been lagging behind day after day and till the end of 2017.

9.  O.P. filed W/V on 16.10.2014 and on 21.07.2015 Complainant filed WNA. Argument was heard on 22.09.2015 and since then judgement has not delivered in pretext of amendment petition and other reasons.

10.  The O.P. No. 2 filed W/V denying, inter alia, all material allegations. O.P. No. 2 stated that for the negligence on the part of the O.P. No. 1 liability cannot come upon O.P. No. 2 as per distribution agreement entered into by and between the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2. The said agreement is only on Principal to Principal basis which is established by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases at page 397 v/s. Consumer Protection Council Kerala. The Distributor be deemed to have acted as a Principal and not as an agent on account of the Corporation and the Corporation shall not in any way liable in respect of contracts. Corporation shall not be liable in respect of such contracts or engagements or in respect of any omission on the part of the Distributor. It is also stated that the Distributor shall be bound to inform the customers in writing of this provision at the time of enrolment of the customer. Accordingly, O.P. No. 2 is not in any way liable.

11.  It is further stated that the Complainant has not stated the period of non supply of Gas Cylinder by the O.P. No. 1.

12.  It is pertinent to mention here that the O.P. No. 2 did not file any Written Version vide order no. 07 dated 12.08.2014. This Forum has passed order to proceed case ex parte against O.P. No. 1. Later on O.P. No. 2 has filed W/V.

POINTS FOR DECISIONS

1)  Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction?

2)  Whether the Complainant has proved Deficiency in Service of O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2?

3)  Whether Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

1.  To prove the case the Complainant has filed Evidence-in-Chief. No original Book of Gas Booking has been filed by the Complainant. No Cylinder Receipt has been filed by the Complainant. O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 did not file Affidavit-in-Chief or any document.

2.  The Complainant has filed Written Notes of Argument.

3.  Admittedly the Petitioner is a customer of LPG Gas having his Consumer No. T06771. It is argued by the Petitioner that some dates in the year 2006, 2012, 2013 Docket was made but Gas was not supplied (Para 3, 4, 5 of the Argument, Page 1 & 2). Established this fact the Complainant did not file the original Booklist for booking Gas and did not mention period during which O.P. No. 1 did not supply Gas to Complainant.

4.  It appears that it is alleged the Petitioner did not get a booking on 24.06.2006 for which he made complain. This is not a proof that the Complainant was deprived of his right to get the cylinder. The fact of 12 years ago cannot be raised in the year 2013, another fact stated by Complainant that on 09.02.2012 the Complainant booked the Gas but the said booking was cancelled on 10.03.2012. But he got the cylinder as per initiative of Area Manager. There is no specified period for which the Complainant was deprived the cylinder.

5.  Very important fact is that not a single scrap of paper or the necessary booking register, which is the customer copy, has not been placed by the Complainant before this Forum for consideration. The veracity of his statement regarding the non supply of Gas by O.P. No. 1, only oral statement on oath, cannot be considered as a sacrament truth regarding the proof of Complainant’s allegation.

6.  The Complainant did not file any affidavit showing the document filed by him in support of his case. No further local persons have come forward with the allegation of non supply of Gas Cylinder to them. The argument which has been made by the Complainant is unable to stand on his leg without any document or evidence of any source, i.e. any documentary or oral evidence.

7.  It is a fact that O.P. No. 1 did not file W/V. O.P. No. 2 contested the case.

8.  Heard from the material on record it is seen that the burden of proof of the Complainant has not been discharged with reliable evidence to establish Deficiency in Service of O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2.

9.  So, after deep deliberation over the material on record we are in the opinion that the material on record fails to prove the case regarding Deficiency in Service of O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The neat result is that the case be and same is dismissed.

10.  The neat result is that the Complainant is unable to prove his allegation.

O R D E R

Accordingly, it is ordered that the C.C. Case No. 223/2013 be and same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.