Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (‘the District Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.153/2011.
2. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Respondent No.1 had taken a cooking gas connection of the Appellant/Opponent No.2 Gas Company. The original Opponent No.1 is a gas agency and the gas connection is taken from the year 1988 and the Consumer Number is 403103. He has filed a consumer complaint alleging following deficiency in services:
a. To provide the cylinder after 22 days from registering the demand.
b. Not weighing cylinder even if requested.
c. To charge more than the price of the cylinder.
d. Gas Agency’s employees not behaving properly with the consumers
e. For charging `8 to `10/- more for supplying the cylinder at the place of residence.
f. Not taking the cognizance of the complaint by the higher authority of the Company.
g. If the complaint is made, Complainant is asked to deposit the regulator and
h. To supply of gas cylinder after the date of expiry.
These were the grievances against the Opponent No.1 and it is grievance of the Complainant that the Opponent No.2 is not taking any cognizance of the complaints. It is also alleged that on 06.07.2009 the Complainant had booked a gas cylinder. He had been given the cylinder on 07.07.2009 without weighing the same. The Complainant noticed the note on the cylinder “A-2008”. The refilling date of the said cylinder was March, 2008 for which the Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Supply Officer and also had enquired into the same. Alleging the deficiencies in service on the part of the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 the Complainant had filed consumer complaint praying to direct the Opponents to pay an amount of `4,80,000/- for supplying the gas cylinder of expired date, `4,250/- for supplying the cylinder late, `5,750/- for the phone bill, travelling expenses, stationery etc and `10,000/- as costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 had challenged the complaint by filing written version, denying the deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissing the complaint.
4. The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent Nos.1 and 2, the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of their Advocates partly allowed the complaint directing the Opponent No.2 to pay compensation of `25,000/- for mental agony, `1,500/- for the expenses incurred by the Complainant on correspondence and travelling and `1,500/- for the costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the Opponent No.2 i.e. H.P. Gas Company has filed the present appeal.
5. We heard Advocate Mr.Page for the Appellant and Advocate Ms.Deepa Matwankar for the Respondent No.2. None present for the Respondent No.1.
6. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 is a dealer and the present Appellant is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. i.e. manufacturing Company and the Respondent No.1 is the original Complainant. The District Forum had not passed any order against the original Opponent No.1 i.e. Respondent No.2 in the appeal. As such the Respondent No.1 has not challenged the said order and there is no appeal against the Opponent No.1.
7. The District Forum allowed the complaint against original Opponent No.2/Appellant only. The Appellant is a manufacturer of the gas. It is responsible for the manufacturing the gas cylinder, its security, its weight. The Opponent No.1 supplied the expired gas cylinder to the original Complainant/Respondent No.1. At page No.160, there is report given by the Plant Manager of the Opponent No.2/Appellant Gas Company. The subject of the report is “Report on the cylinder submitted for investigation”. In the said report it is observed that the “foot ring of the said cylinder is broken and damaged. Top ring has minor cut. Stay-plate markings are overwritten at few places. DPT (Due for pressure testing) date mentioned is A-08.” It is further stated that “due to many non conformities observed in respect of the cylinder received for investigation, we are of the confident opinion that this cylinder was not dispatched from the HPCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Sinnar, Nashik”. It is also stated in the said letter that “HPCL is using only HP Gas caps for the cylinders and no Indane caps are used to cap filled cylinders inside the plant. Tare Weight punched & stenciled are different on the cylinder. Generally it shall be same. The PVC Sea is also half cut. Complete seal is not available as per HP Gas Seal specifications.”
8. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the Appellant/Opponent No.2 had denied that it was their cylinder. In the circumstances, they should have taken action against the dealer. However, they have not taken any action. It is proved beyond doubt that the cylinder supplied was defective and the Appellant should have initiated action against Opponent No.1/Respondent No.2. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Original Opponent No.2/Appellant. District Forum after finding deficiency in service on their part has passed the order. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal filed is without any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 1st August, 2013.
