IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /143/2015.

 Date of Filing: 22.09.2015.                                            Date of Final Order: 30.05.2016.

Complainant: Bappa Ghosh , S/O Debprosad Ghosh,  Vill&P.O. Choa, P.S. Hariharpara,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Supriya Ghosh, Prop. M/s Nilkanta H.P. Gas, Gramin Vitarak,

                         Vill.&.P.O. Swaruppur, P.S. Hariharpara, Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

 The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 for compensation against taking more price than the retail price by the OP.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complaint is a consumer under the OP/Supriya Ghosh, Pro. M/s Nilkanta HP, Gas Gramin Vitarak. He used to book and received the gas cylinder regularly from the OP .The complainant has been watching that the OP is taking more price than the retail price of a cylinder. When he asked the matter to the OP, she denied. Afterwards, the complainant searching the matter to another distributor and ensured the matter. Then several times he protested the OP in this matter but in vain. The OP did not pay any heed. So, the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress against his illegal, unfair trade practice with a prayer for compensation of Rs.50, 000/- for the OP’s dishonesty.

On the other hand, the OP entered into this case by filing written version, where she denied all the allegations raised in the complaint. The OP also stated that the allegation of taking extra price is not true as well as the competent authority of the OP is H.P. Gas Company, who can give the answer. But the complainant did not make H.P. Gas Company as a necessary party. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Now, the only consideration point is that whether the OP is liable for deficiency in service or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                                  Decision with Reasons.

It is very pertinent to mention that the complainant has submitted some documents in support of his case.

From the record it appears that the complainant booked and received the gas cylinders regularly but he had a suspicion and was informed by another distributor that his distributor/the OP used to take extra money  than the retail price but he did not specifically mentioned or submitted any authentic papers regarding extra amount and or compare to other distributors.

On the other hand, the OP stated in his written version that H.P,. Gas agency is the authorized in this matter, so they should be necessary party in this case. We also observed that the complainant did not make H.G. Gas Company as party in this case to solve the problem.

Relying upon the documents in the record and on the basis the above discussion and for the absent of cogent evidence, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complaint failed to prove his case and for that he is not entitled to get relief. Accordingly, the case be dismissed.

Hence,

                                                        Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 143/2015 be and the same is dismissed on merit.

There will be no other order as to cost.

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

        Member                                           Member                                                             President