Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
This appeal has been filed by org. opponent No.1/HPCL against the order dated 04/07/2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.507/2007, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the opponents jointly and severally to pay `10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for deficiency in service and `1,000/- towards costs. Being aggrieved by the said order, opponent No.1/manufacturer has filed present appeal.
2. The complainant is the consumer of opponent No.1 having Consumer Gas No.610325. The complainant stated that opponent No.1 supplied LPG gas cylinder in around September 2005 to the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that said gas cylinder was installed in the month of December 2005 and it was completely exhausted within 15 days from the date of installation. The complainant informed said fact to opponent No.2/dealer. The complainant also lodged claim dated 20/12/2005 with opponent No.2. Opponent No.2 sent its staff with Weight Scale and noticed that said cylinder was less weighted and also requested the complainant for replacement of the said cylinder. Opponent No.2 vide its letter dated 02/01/2006 also requested the complainant to return the said cylinder for sending it to the LPG Gas to refilling plant for further investigation. The complainant stated that vide letter dated 19/01/2006 he conveyed all the facts to the concerned officer, dealing with consumer complaints of HP Gas, Mumbai and xerox copy of said letter was also sent to HPCL at Byculla. It is alleged by the complainant that despite receipt of letter dated 19/01/2006 and even after lapse of 7½ months the concerned HPCL Authority did not bother to reply the complainant’s letter or take any steps in connection with his complaint. Opponent No.1 vide its letter dated 26/04/2007 for the first time since 20/12/2005 i.e. after lapse of approximately 16 months permitted the complainant to accompany the Executive Sales Officer to witness the investigation and further requested to hand over the cylinder to the concerned Distributor. The complainant also produced necessary certificate from the concerned Weights & Measure Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 18/07/2007 issued by its Inspector, Kalyan Division. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for deficiency in service against the opponents and prayed for compensation and costs.
3. Opponent No.1 filed its written version and contested the claim of the complainant. It pleaded that opponent No.1 had entered into HP Gas Dealership dated 26/09/2001 and subsequently renewed from time to time with opponent No.2. Opponent No.1 pleaded that as per Clause No.18 of the agreement, it clearly states that LPG Distributorship is on “Principal to Principal Basis” and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation. This principle has been also upheld by the Supreme Court and the National Commission. Opponent No.1 further pleaded that the LPG Distributor was supposed to check the LPG filled cylinders received by them in their godowns/premises. Dealer has to test quality/leakages, etc. and correct weight of LPG cylinders received by him and also get satisfied himself before delivery of the same to the consumers. In the instant case as alleged by the complainant/respondent herein the LPG filled cylinder was correctly delivered in so far as quality and quantity is concerned to the opponent No.2 by opponent No.1. There was no leakage or short filling of the subject LPG cylinder at the relevant time and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1 and finally, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Opponent No.2/dealer has also filed its written version and pleaded that LPG refill was supplied by the opponent No.2 to the complainant in the month of September 2005. Cylinder was checked by the deliveryman before delivering it to the complainant. The cylinder was in possession of the complainant for more than two months from September 2005 and he was using this cylinder till the time of his complaint i.e. 20/12/2005. He has also used about 9 Kg. out of 14.2 Kg. of LPG from this cylinder. Opponent No.2 further pleaded that the cylinder was in perfect usable condition at the time of delivery in September 2005. Opponent No.2 has also asked the complainant to return the cylinder vide its letter dated 02/01/2006 for testing and for analysis before appropriate laboratory, but complainant has failed to return the said cylinder to the opponent No.2. Opponent No.2 finally prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. We heard Mr.S.R. Page, Advocate for the appellant and respondent No.1 in person. We perused the copy of memo of appeal, impugned order and documents placed on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the cylinder provided by opponent No.2/dealer to the complainant was less in weight. Therefore, complainant lodged claim with opponent No.2. Opponent No.2 sent its staff with Weight Scale and noticed that the cylinder was less weighted. Therefore, opponent No.2 requested the complainant to return the cylinder for forwarding it to the appropriate laboratory for its checking. Said fact about weight of aforesaid cylinder has been also reconfirmed by Weights & Measures Department, Government of Maharashtra vide certificate dated 18/07/2007. We also perused Analysis Report of Shri S.P. Donadkar, Chief Regional Manager of opponent No.1. The Analysis Report reproduce as under :-
“LPG was not coming out of the cylinder on operation of the Regulator because the SC Valve was choked. The foreign material got released and the cylinder is now fit to use. The product has been tested in the laboratory and meets the Standard LPG norms as per IS:4576.”
7. It would clearly go to show that SC Valve was choked and therefore, less gas was filled up in the cylinder. Hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1. It is also contention of the complainant that after lapse of 7½ months, concerned HPCL Authority did not bother to reply the complainant’s letter dated 19/01/2006 and take any steps in connection with his complaint. For the first time since 20/12/2005 after lapse of approximately 16 months opponents permitted complainant to accompany the Executive Sales Officer to witness the investigation and requested to hand over the cylinder to the concerned Distributor. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rightly given its finding that opponents failed to give explanation why and how the cylinder weight is less. Therefore, there is clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. In these circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just, proper and sustainable in law. There is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant/HPCL. Hence, we pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 10th June 2011.
