IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/10/2015.

 Date of Filing: 15.01.2015                                                                          Date of Final Order: 24.08.2016

 Abu Hossain Mia.

 S/O- Lt.Afajuddin Mia, Vill.& P.O.- Raninagar,

P.S.- Raninagar, Dist.- Murshidabad. PIN.-742308.             ………….…..…………………………… Complainant.

-Vs-

1).The Distributor,

 Sultana Indane Gramin Vitarak,Vill.& P.O.-Babaltali,

P.S.- Raninagar, Dist.- Murshidabad, PIN.-742308.

2). The Chief Manager,

 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Eastern Region,34A Nirmal Chandra Street,

Kolkata-700013.                                                                                ............................................... Opposite Parties.

                            Before:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

 Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

                Brief facts of the case are that this complainant being a consumer of OP No.1 booked gas on 20.09.2015 but it was not delivered to him till 13.01.2015. During the period of taking gas connection on 26.04.2014 the OP told that the complainant can avail a cylinder every 50 days and he can book for the same. Then the complainant many a times requested the OP to deliver the gas cylinder but the OP did not pay any heed to that which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Thereafter the complainant by a letter dated 13.10.2014 asked the OP to serve the gas cylinder for his daily usage in every 50 days otherwise he will take necessary action. Then the complainant lodged a telephonic complaint to a toll free number at Delhi but nothing happened and he is not getting gas till date. For non delivery of the gas on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service on the part OP for which the complainant filed the instant complaint for redressal as prayed in the complaint petition.

           The OP No.1 appeared by its agent and filed written version denying the allegation as leveled against him. He averred that OP is a mere distributor of Indane and the complainant took gas connection on 26.04.2014 and cylinder was delivered to him on 27.04.2014, 30.05.2014,15.07.2014 & 20.08.2014 upon booking by the complainant. The answering OP is ready to deliver the LPG cylinders as per supply by Indane. The petitioners received four cylinders within 27.04.2014 to 29.08.2014. So the delivery will depend upon the supply of cylinder by Indane. So this OP has nothing to do in case of shortage of supply. He never gave such an assurance to supply the cylinder after 50 days.  

               The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that the OP No.1 did not supply the gas cylinder as booked on 20.9.2014 till 01.6.2015 and the OP is deficient in providing service to this complainant for which he is under liability to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5000/- and Rs.1200/- for cost and harassment.

             The advocate on behalf of the complainant and OP advanced arguments which were heard in full.

             From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1).Whether the Complainant Abu Hossain Mia is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service    towards the Complainant?

   4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and                                                                                                                whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1) Whether the Complainant Abu Hossain Mia is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

               From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of the OP No.1 enjoying the gas connection having consumer no. CX 8557829, so he is entitled to get service from the OP.

 (2) Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

           Both complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.6200/- ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.               

 (3) Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?                  

After perusing the complaint petition, documents, affidavit-in-chief and hearing the arguments this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of OP No.1. He used to book gas cylinders on his need and got cylinders after a considerable period as it depicts from the refill receipt. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant did not get cylinder booked on 20.09.2014 after a prolonged period. He put the matter before the OP No.1 who did not solve the problem of the complainant. The complainant served a letter dated 13.10.2014 and also informed the OP No.2 regarding the irregular supply of gas. But none took effective measure to mitigate the problem of the complainant. The act and attitude of the OP No.1 is not satisfactory. Getting no alternative the complainant sought redress of this Forum.

Getting notice from this Forum OP No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written version and despite receiving notice OP No.2 did not turn up so the proceedings run ex parte against him.

 The complainant getting no gas cylinder booked on 20.09.2014 knocked the door of the OP No.1 who in his turn took no measure to solve the problem. He is being a bona fide consumer of OP No.1 suffering a lot as he is not getting gas cylinders at regular course. The OP No.1 created an artificial crisis to snatch money from the customers. The complainant informed the matter to the OP No.2 but he remained silent regarding the matter. He is the right person to take appropriate action against his distributor. After receiving notice from the Forum he did not turn up and filed no written version. Such distribution is under the control of Oil Corporation and the distributors are bound to follow the norms of delivery of gases throughout the nation. The OP No.1 is under liability to meet the valid demand of his customers. From the written version of OP No.1 it appears that cylinders were delivered to the complainant on 27.04.2014, 30.05.2014, 15.07.2014 & 20.08.2014 upon booking by the complainant. This averment of the OP No.1 is not challenged by the complainant. In this case the OP No.1 failed to provide the gas cylinder to this complainant in time for which the complainant getting no alternative took the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. After perusing the case record as well as documents in the record the OP No.1 delayed the supply of gas cylinders but did not deny the supply. OP No.1 in his written version assailed that he is ready to supply the gas cylinders as per availability of cylinders but he is no way deficient in providing gas cylinders. The complainant herein failed to produce any document regarding the booking of gas as assailed in the complaint petition. So we are in a considered opinion that mere direction to the OP No.1 is sufficient to normalize the gas supply of the complainant.

  4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

               The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not prove his case beyond any doubt so the opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant for mental pain and agony.

             Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the opposite parties with no order as to cost.

            The OP No.1 is directed to normalize the gas supply of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receiving this order.

             At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party No.1  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid15 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

             Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties  in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

    Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President.