IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/139/2015.

 Date of Filing: 22.09.2015                                                                                  Date of Final Order: 24.05.2016

Anima Ghosh.

W/O-Buddhadeb Ghosh.Vill.- Malopara.

P.O.- Padmanabhpur.P.S.- Hariharpara.

 Dist.- Murshidabad        .…..…………………………… Complainant.

-Vs-

Supriya Ghosh.

 Prop.M/S- Nilkantha H.P.Gas Gramin Vitarak.

Vill. & P.O.- Swaruppur.

P.S.- Hariharpara.Dist.- Murshidabad, ……………….…..……............ Opposite Party.

                            Before:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

 Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

               This case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an order directing the OP to refund the excess price which was taken from the complainant on several occasions with fine of Rs.50, 000/- for her dishonesty, harassment and mental pain and agony of the complainant.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she is a bona fide consumer under the OP. The complainant has been watching that the OP is taking excess price more than retail price of a refilled gas cylinder. She asked the OP about the matter but the OP replied that she is taking actual price of the refilled gas cylinder from all her customers. On enquiring the matter from the Distributor of the Gas Agency she came to know that the OP is willfully taking excess price of a refilled gas cylinder from her customers. The complainant protested many a times against the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP but in vain. For this reason the complainant knocked at the door of the Forum and seeking redress. 

            The case of the OP, in brief, is that statements made by the complainant in different paras are not at all true and denied by the Opposite Party. The positive case of the OP is that she did not willingly and illegally taking excess price from this petitioner as well as her other customers. The OP has no latches. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. No unfair trade practice has been adopted by the OP. The case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

             The advocate on behalf of the OP advanced arguments which were heard in full. None argued in favour of the complainant.

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

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1).   Whether the Complainant Anima Ghosh 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 her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?

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 Anima Ghosh 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)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of the OP enjoying the gas connection of H.P.Gas from the OP, so she 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.50,000/- 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?             

            The case of the complainant is that she is receiving the H.P.Gas from the OP distributor like other customers. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant came to know that the OP is taking more money from the complainant than the price as depicted in the  computer generated copy that produced by the complainant. The Xerox copy of bill dated 01.9.2015 shows that the price of gas as supplied by the OP distributor is Rs.632.00 and the complainant received the gas by paying the said price. The computer generated copy shows that a digit is reflected as 606 by the side of Swaruppur. It also transpires that “Please find attached the change in billing rate /RSP of LPG packed effective 01.9.2015”.  The OP in her written version submits that OP did not willingly, illegally & unethically take more prices from this petitioner & several customers than other company and she further submits that OP did not take more price of the gas cylinder dishonestly from the petitioner. She assailed that the H.P. Gas Company is the necessary party in this proceeding but the complainant did not make him/her party for the proper adjudication of the case.  But the complainant did not produce any evidence on affidavit and failed to add necessary party for the proper adjudication of the case.  Complainant also failed to advance argument to prove her case. It is the H.P.Gas Company whose presence or averments is vital for determination that at the relevant point of time i.e. during the booking of gas and during the period of delivery what the price was. In the prayer as well as in the complaint petition there is no specific mention of difference amount, but she stated only the more money. So for adjudicating the complaint case we could find any cogent ground to believe that the OP has taken more money from the complainant and as such she is not liable to pay compensation. Apart from filing the complaint the Complainant failed to prove the liability of the OP by producing sufficient documents and the petition is also liable to be rejected due to non joinder of necessary parties.

   4. Whether the complainant proved her 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 her 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 dismissed on contest with no order as to cost.

            The OP is exonerated from her liability of paying any compensation to this complaint.

             Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

             Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest 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.