Consumer Complaint No. 236 of 2015
Date of filing: 15.12.2015 Date of disposal: 20.12.2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumder Hon’ble Member,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha Hon’ble Member,
Madhurima Nandi, W/o. Sachindam Nandi,
Resident of Satsanga Bhajan Kendra Goli,
Tejganj/Mohanbag South, P.O.-Natunganj,
Burdwan, Pin-713102. Complainant.
VERSUS
- State Government Employees Consumers
Co-operative Stores Ltd., represented through
Its Manager, having its office at Court Compound,
Kachhari Road, Town, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan,
Pin-713101.
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., represented by its
Regional Manager, having its office at Indian Oil
Bhawan, 2, Gariahat Road, South Dhakuria,
Kolkata-700 068. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 1 : None.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 2 : Ld. Advocates, J.N. Sinha, P.Banerjee and D.K. Sinha.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.P. No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.350/-, to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps. for the purpose of consuming domestic gas having gas connection No.CX18416531, the complainant got said gas connection on 16.2.2015 from the O.P. No.1 after observing all the formalities and paying necessary consideration amount and since beginning the complainant has been enjoying gas for domestic purposes using two gas cylinders. On 16.2.2015 the O.P. No.1 received Rs.700/- by issuing a cash memo being No.1489. By issuing said cash memo the O.P. No.1 received Rs.600/- on the head of inspection charge and Rs.100/- for providing blue book and service charge. Thereafter, from various sources and from her relatives, the complainant came to know that O.P. No.2 has fixed Rs.250/- as inspection charge. Knowing such fact the complainant through her husband requested the O.P. No.1 to refund the excess money of (Rs.600/- minus Rs.250/-) =Rs.350/- which the O.P. No.1 received illegally. The O.P. No.1 at the first instant agreed to repay the same but ultimately did not repay the such amount inspite of repeated requests. The complainant knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs Department, Burdwan but O.P. did not take any steps to solve the dispute. The complainant thereafter by sending a legal notice dated 6.10.2015 requested the O.P. No.1 to pay such excess amount of Rs.350/- but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to such notice. For deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1, the complainant has been suffering from mental pain, agony and harassment and has been forced to come before this Forum to get relief. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
Inspite of service of notice, the O.P. No.1 did not contest this case by filing written version and accordingly this case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.1.
The O.P. No.2 contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no locus standy to bring this proceeding against this O.P., the complainant has no cause of action against the O.P. No.2, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant neither informed nor lodged any complaint before O.P. No.2., in the complaint the complainant has brought no allegation of deficiency in service against this O.P. and as such this case is liable to be dismissed against this O.P. No.2.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In support of his case the complainant has relied upon the contents of the complaint, evidence on affidavit submitted on 30.8.2016, photocopies of money receipt being No.1489 dated 16.2.2015, first and second pages of gas delivery book showing consumer number, details of cylinders, delivery of refilled gas cylinder etc., lawyers notice dated 6.10.2015, postal receipt dated 6.10.2015 and postal acknowledgement connected with the postal receipt dated 6.10.2015 showing service of legal notice upon the O.P. No.1 and also net copy of new connection tariff issued by the O.P. No.2.
We carefully perused the contents of the pleadings and other materials on record. It appears that no document except the delivery book and cash memo No.1489 dated 16.2.2015, related to getting of new gas connection being No.CX18416531, has been submitted in this case. There is no evidence on record showing total amount which the complainant has paid to get such gas connection to the O.P. No.1, only relying upon the photocopy of cash memo being No.1489 and relying upon the photocopy of gas delivery book the complainant has brought an allegation against the O.P. No.1 that the O.P. No.1 has received the inspection charge of Rs.600/- from the complainant illegally. We carefully perused the above two documents it appears that on 16.2.2015 the O.P. No.1 received Rs.600/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.50/- for oven, blue book and service charge respectively. The complainant has stated that the Rs.600/- was taken by the O.P. no.1 illegally as ‘inspection charge’ and in that connection he has only relied upon ‘i.e.’ written by hand in the same clomn after the ward ‘oven’ and the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the full form of ‘i.e.’ is inspection charge. This submission of Ld. Advocate is not acceptable as the word ‘oven’ has not been cut or pen throughn. From the cash memo as mentioned above it appears that the O.P. No.1 received Rs.600/- as value of the oven. The word ‘i.e.’ may be used to specify model of the oven. Net copy of new connection tariff issued by the O.P. No.2 shows that the O.P. No.2 has fixed Hotplate Inspection Charges at the time of release of new connection at Rs.250/-. In the cash memo ‘HIC’ has not been mentioned. More over the gas was released on 14.2.2015 as per gas delivery book but the cash memo being No.1489 was issued on 16.2.2015. So, it could not be said that at the time of release of the new connection such amount of Rs.600/- was received by the O.P. No.1 from the complainant. Though the O.P. no.1 has not come before this Forum to contest this case, the burden of prove to prove her case, is lying upon the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove that the O.P. No.1 received Rs.600/- for Hotplate Inspection Charges at the time of release of new connection.
In view of our above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the O.P. No.1 illegally received Rs.600/- as inspection charge from the complainant and also to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. So, the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the case fails. Fees paid, is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that complaint being No.236/2015 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against the rest without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
