BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 229/2014     Filed on 12.06.2014

ORDER DATED: 28.06.2018

Complainant:

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. N.G. Mahesh)

(by Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This C.C having been heard on 24.05.2018, the Forum on 28.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

Case of the complainant is as follows.  The complaint is filed by the power of Attorney holder of the complainant alleging that the complainant is a customer of 1^st opposite party, M/s. Shelly Gas Agency vide consumer No.2608 who is a dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, Indian Oil Corporation.  The complainant booked a refill gas cylinder on 23.12.2013 vide booking No.340026.  On 06.01.2014, the complainant received a message that the gas cylinder was delivered vide cash memo No.300011076.  Even after 6 months from the date of receipt of message, the complainant did not get gas cylinder from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant waited till 03.02.2014 and as the said cylinder was not delivered, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for the delivery of gas cylinder and the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the said cylinder was delivered within a week.  On 13.02.2014 again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for getting the cylinder, the 1^st opposite party enquired with the complainant whether he had brought the empty cylinder and that if the empty cylinder not brought the refill cylinder will be delivered within a week at the residence of the complainant.  After one week the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant with a gas cylinder saying that the said cylinder’s price was for Rs.1,100/- and bill will not be issued.  The complainant refused to accept the refill for the reason that the 1^st opposite party informed the cylinder regarding which message was on 06.01.2014 can be delivered only after a few more days.  On 20.03.2014 the complainant orally made a complaint before the 2^nd opposite party through telephone and the 2^nd opposite party instructed the complainant to approach 1^st opposite party for getting his grievance redressed.  The complainant filed complaint before the Human Rights Commission Vikas Bhavan Office against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and they filed false reply and the complainant received the copy of the same on 30.05.2014.  The complainant had made two bookings on 13.11.13 and 23.12.13 after linking Aadhar.  The 1^st booking was dated 13.11.13 and the cylinder was delivered on 11.12.13.  The complainant paid Rs.1,100/- for the said cylinder.  The balance amount was credited on 09.12.14 in account of the complainant in the Union Bank Account No.2254.  The complainant praying one lakh compensation of mental agony and costs from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

1^st opposite party filed version contenting as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant filed the same complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Trivandrum and that was disposed by the Human Rights Commission.  Again complainant filed this complaint before the Forum.  Complainant’s cylinder was delivered on 04.01.14 and the complainant had not made any refill booking.  There is no delay from the part of 1^st opposite party to supply the cylinder to the complainant.  On May 5^th, 2014 1^st opposite party delivery staff took a refill cylinder to complainant home but he refused to take the cylinder.   The complainant had booked a cylinder on 30.12.13 at 12:50 hrs vide booking No.2000073415 and not on 23.12.2013.  The 1^st opposite party, Shelly Gas Agency had delivered a cylinder to the complainant on 04.01.14 vide cash memo No.3000111076 dated 04.01.14 for Rs.1240.95/-.  It is for the said delivery that the complainant might have got SMS dated 06.01.14.  The complainant/consumer got the subsidy reimbursement for the said delivery on 04.01.14 through his bank account maintained with the Union Bank on 09.01.14.  It is submitted that after the delivery of cylinder on 04.01.14, there was no booking by the complainant/consumer and when the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party for a cylinder in 13.05.14, no cylinder could be given as there was no booking.   It is submitted that based on the explanation filed by the opposite parties to Kerala State Human Rights Commission, the matter has been closed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and no further action has been taken by the Commission.  It is submitted that only one cylinder was given to the complainant/consumer with DNSC (Domestic Non-Subsidized Cylinder) rate and that was for the booking made by him on 30.12.13 and the booked cylinder was delivered on 04.01.14.  Subsidy reimbursement for the said booking and delivery was given to the complainant through his bank account on 09.01.14 as stated above.  This being the true state of affairs and that the two bookings were made by the complainant etc are nothing but falsehood.  It is submitted that the details submitted before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission are as per the records available in the system.  It is submitted that as per the 1^st opposite party/distributor the counter-foil of the bill is available.  It is submitted that the 1^st opposite party has not caused any problems or sufferings to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party have not sold any cylinder to any other person instead of the complaint illegally.  The 1^st opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has not violated any of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.   The 1^st opposite party is not liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- or any amount as compensation.  The compensation is not entitled to get any costs.

          2^nd opposite party filed version contenting as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The averments therein that the complainant had booked a cylinder on 23.12.14 vide booking No.340026 and that he has not received the cylinder yet are absolutely false and therefore denied.  It is submitted that the complainant had booked a cylinder on 30.12.13 at 12:50 hrs vide booking No.2000073415 and not on 23.12.2013.  it is further submitted that the 1^st opposite party, Shelly Gas Agency had delivered a cylinder to the complainant on 04.01.14 vide cash memo No.3000111076 dated 04.01.14 for Rs.1240.95/-.  It is also submitted that it is for the said delivery that the complainant might have got SMS dated 06.01.14.  The complainant/consumer got the subsidy reimbursement for the said delivery on 04.01.14 through his bank account maintained with the Union Bank on 09.01.14.  After the delivery of cylinder on 04.01.14, there was no booking by the complainant/consumer and when the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party for a cylinder in 13.05.14, no cylinder could be given as there was no booking.  On the explanation filed by the opposite parties to Kerala State Human Rights Commission, no further action has been taken by the Commission.  Only one cylinder was given to the complainant/consumer with DNSC (Domestic Non-Subsidized Cylinder) rate and that was for the booking made by him on 30.12.13 and the booked cylinder was delivered on 04.01.14.  Subsidy reimbursement for the said booking and delivery was given to the complainant through his bank account on 09.01.14 as stated above.  This being the true state of affairs and that the two bookings were made by the complainant etc are nothing but falsehood.  It is submitted that as per the 1^st opposite party/distributor the counter-foil of the bill is available with them.  It is submitted that the 1^st opposite party has not caused any problems or sufferings to the complainant.  The opposite parties have not sold any cylinder to any other person instead of the complaint illegally.  The 2^nd opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant.   The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- or any amount as compensation.  The compensation is not entitled to get any costs.

Issues

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, reliefs and costs, if any?

Issues (i) and (ii)

The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext. P1 to P7 were marked from the complainant’s side.  Exts. P4, P6, P7 were the documents produced by the 2^nd opposite party before the Human Rights Commission and the same were produced by the complainant before the Honourable Forum.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party did not adduce any evidence before the Forum.  The crux of the complainant’s case is that the complaint booked Gas cylinder on 23.12.13 vide booking no.340026 and that on 06.01.14 the complainant received a message that the gas cylinder was delivered vide cash memo on.300011076 and that after the lapse of 6 month the complainant never got the gas cylinder from the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party’s specific case is that the complainant had booked a cylinder on 30.12.13 at 12.50 hrs vide booking no.2000073415 and that no booking was made on 23.12.13 and that the 1^st opposite party Shelly gas agency had delivered a cylinder to the complainant on 04.01.14 for Rs.1240.95/-.  The complainant got the subsidy reimbursement for the said delivery on 04.01.14 through his bank account maintained with the Union Bank on 09.01.14 and that it is clearly seen in the Ext. P4, account details and Ext. P7.  It is also submitted that it is for the said delivery that the complainant might have got SMS dated 06.01.14.  In the cross examination of the complainant the complainant deposed before this Honourable Forum (in page no.8 of the depositions of PW1) as follows:  ഇതിൽ 30.12.2013-ൽ book ചെയ്തത് 04.01.14-ല്‍ delivery ചെയ്തെന്നും subsidy തുകയായ Rs.816.39/-
account-ല്‍ വന്നിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഉണ്ട് (A) Ext. P7 പ്രകാരം 04.01.14-ല്‍ താങ്കള്‍ക്ക് cylinder കിട്ടിയില്ല എന്നാണോ പരാതി (Q) അതെ (A)        Rs.816.39/- എനിക്ക് കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. (A) Rs.816.39/- നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ബുക്ക് ചെയ്യാതെ കിട്ടിയ തുകയാണോ (Q) അല്ല. (A)  The complainant produced the copy of the first page of the consumer book no.26078 and marked it as Ext. P1.  It is stated in Ext.P1 that the complainant received gas cylinder on 14.12.13.  Here it is pertinent to that it is the opposite parties who are supplying gas to the complainant even now.  On page no.7 of deposition of PW1, it is stated as follows:  14.1213-ന് ശേഷം ഉള്ള Ext.P1 രേഖയുടെ ബാക്കി ഹാജരാക്കാന്‍ തയ്യാറുണ്ടോ (Q) അതെ (A) Ext.P1-ന്‍റെ original ഞാന്‍ ഹാജരാക്കാം (A)            ഈ കണക്ഷനില്‍ ഇപ്പോഴും cylinder കിട്ടുന്നുണ്ടോ (Q) ഉവ്വ് (A) After the delivery of cylinder on 04.01.14 there was no booking by the complainant/customer and the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party for a cylinder only on 13.02.14.  It is submitted that the complainant filed a case before the Human Rights Commission for the same cause of action and that the opposite parties appeared and filed records available in the system.  The matter has been closed by the Human Rights Commission and no further action has been taken by the Commission.  The complainant produced and marked the document which were produced by the 2^nd opposite party before the Human Rights Commission before this Forum as Ext. P4, P5 and P7 and that is admitted by the complainant in the cross examination (deposition of PW1, page no. 8 & 7).                  ‍

Complainant is filed by the P/A holder and he was examined as PW1.  Opposite parties contention is that once the complainant approached the Human Rights Commission for the same course of action and the matter was settled before them.  But as per the order of Human Rights Commission, complainant filed this complaint here, since Human Rights Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain that complaint, as no ‘public servants’ are involved in the dispute.  So that question will not stand here.  Complainant says that he had booked cylinder on 23.12.13 and that was not delivered to him.  But as per the records produced by him, no booking is seen on that date.  So complainant fails miserably to establish his case, which is only to be dismissed.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of June, 2018.

SL

C.C.No. 229/2014

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                                                                                                 Sd/-

PRESIDENT