Date of Filing: 18-04-2017 Date of Final Order: 17-01-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Utpal Kumar Ray (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) filed this case against the Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation and the Distributor, Dipanwita Gas Service, Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The gist of the complaint case is that the Complainant is a consumer of the Ops as he is a consumer of LPG Gas being Consumer No. CX 7762072. It is alleged that the Complainant booked for a subsidized LPG cylinder on 02.01.17 and Rs.636.50 was charged for the Gas Cylinder and Rs.184.60 had been credited to his Bank Account as LPG subsidy. It was pleaded that the price of the LPG was less than the price charged for supply of Gas Cylinder against his booking dated 02.01.17. It was contended that the fact of charging excess amount was informed to the OPs but of no result, for which he sent an e-mail to one Mr. Abhisek Kumar, Area Officer of the OP No.1 but of no result. That on 02.02.17, the Complainant sent a complaint to the Area Manager i.e. the OP No.1 by Regd. Post but no response was received. He alleged unfair trade practice against the OPs for charging excess amount as price of LPG cylinder. That on the strength of D.O. No. P-39014/86 MKT dated 14.04.88 issued by Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Govt. of India regarding mandatory checking of oven with specific fees is essential. The Complainant asked the OP No.2 for mandatory checking of his oven but the OP No.2 was negligent in providing mandatory checking. That the Complainant made the complaint with the Area Officer and the Area Manager of IOC on 22.03.17 and then the OP No.2 sent an Attendant for mandatory checking of oven and after mandatory checking of oven, the authorized Agent Phani Roy replaced the burners of the oven and issued a bill on receipt of payment of Rs.360/-. That within a couple of days after servicing, the Complainant had found that the problem had not been solved and it was found that the burners were not ISI standard. The Complainant met the staff of the OP No.2 complaining defective servicing and providing non-ISI burners but the problem had not been solved. As a result, the Complainant mailed another complaint to the Area Officer on 11.04.17 but the issue is still unresolved. Hence, the OPs had deficiency in providing proper service to the Complainant.
The Complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.25,000/- for harassment of the Complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP No.1 filed W/V on 11.07.17 inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant has no locus-standi or cause of action to file this complaint and the complaint is bad for defect of parties. It was pleaded that the allegations against the OPs are false and the OP No.1 had no role to play for fixing the price or payment of subsidy towards domestic LPG cylinder. It was also pleaded that the price of LPG supply to the Complainant on the basis of booking dated 02.01.17 was in accordance with the price fixed by the appropriate authority. The OP has no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.2 filed w/v on 11.07.17 contending that the case is bad for defect of parties as the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and Central Govt. are necessary parties. It was pleased that price of LPG was charged for supply of LPG to the Complainant in accordance with the price fixed by the appropriate authority. As regards mandatory checking of oven, it was stated that the OP No.2 conducted mandatory checking and replaced the burners of the oven of the Complainant on receiving Rs.360/- and it is false to say that the burner tops supplied to the Complainant were not ISI standard. It was also stated that ISI mark is only embossed on the body of the oven and not on the burner. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2. The OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Complainant in person has submitted that he is a consumer under the OPs in terms of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986. In reply, the Ld. Agents for the OP Nos.1 and 2 stated nothing. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Complainant in person submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and claim amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. In reply, the Ld. Agents for the OPs have stated nothing on this point. On going through the materials on record, we find that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. It is held that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Complainant in person submitted that the OP No.2 supplied one LPG cylinder on the strength of requisition dated 02.01.17 on receiving payment of Rs.636.50/-. It was submitted that LPG price of subsidized 14 Kgs Indane gas was Rs.436.71/- in Kolkata as per Annexure-10 but the Ops charged Rs.636.50/- and gave subsidy of Rs.184.60 only. He contended that the OPs actually received Rs.451.90/- in place of Rs.436.71/- thereby received Rs.15.19/- per cylinder in excess of the price fixed by the appropriate authority. It was further contended that the OP No.2 was also negligent in providing proper service to the Complainant by supplying burner tops which were not ISI standard. It was urged that both the OPs have deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has prayed for passing appropriate order against the OPs in terms of the prayer of the complaint petition.
The Ld. Agent for the OP No.1 has submitted that the OP No.1 is not the appropriate authority for fixing the price of LPG cylinder. It was argued that the OP No.2 had rightly received Rs.636.50 from the Complainant as per price fixed by the appropriate authority (Annexure A). It was argued that the OP has no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
The Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of LPG gas under the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 had attended the residence of the Complainant and made mandatory checking of the oven and replaced two burner tops on receiving Rs.360/-. It was contended that the burner tops supplied to the Complainant were of ISI standard but the ISI mark was not embossed on the burner top as it is only embossed on the body of the oven. He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
We have gone through the complaint petition, w/v, evidence and documents submitted by both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he is a consumer of LPG gas. Admittedly, the OP No.2 supplied one LPG cylinder on 02.01.17 by charging Rs.636.50/- and Rs.184.60/- was credited to the Bank Account of the Complainant as subsidy. The first dispute raised by the Complainant is that the OPs charged the price of LPG gas in excess. According to the version of the Complainant, the price of subsidized 14 Kgs indane gas in January, 2017 was Rs.436.71/- in Kolkata (Annexure-10) and according to the OPs, the price of 14.2 kg LPG cylinder in January, 2017 was Rs.636.50/- (Annexure - A). We find valid substance in the submission of Ld. Agents for the OPs that LPG price is not fixed by the OPs. The Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Govt. of India is the authority to fix the price of LPG cylinder. The Complainant has not made the said Ministry and the Central Govt. as parties. Moreover, it appears from Annexure A that price of LPG cylinder of 14.2 Kgs Indane gas was Rs.636.50/- in January, 2017. Therefore, the allegation of the Complainant against the OPs regarding charging more prices for supply of LPG cylinder in January, 2017 had no basis at all.
The second dispute raised by the Complainant is that the OP No.2 had deficiency in service/unfair trade practice by not providing proper service to the Complainant for replacement of non-ISI standard burner tops at a price of Rs.360/-. Admittedly, the OP No.2 received Rs.360/- for replacement of two burner tops on 23.03.17. The Complainant has not sought for inspection of his alleged defective burner tops by an expert to ascertain as to whether the burner tops supplied by the OP No.2 are of ISI standard or not. Without any cogent evidence/proof, we find no reason to hold that 2 burner tops supplied by the OP No.2 on 23.03.17 on receipt of Rs.360/- are not ISI standard and the OP No.1 has deficiency in service.
On the basis of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice against the OPs and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.Ps without any cost.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules. The copy of this order also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
