BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.17/2013

Dated this the 23^th day of April 2015.

J. Umashankar

S/o.Late.M.Jagadishwarasharma

No.4, 4^th Cross, Krishna nagar,

Lawspet, Puducheryr-8.                                                                 ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. The Authorised Signatory

     Rajarajan Gas Agency

     Thiruvalluvar Salai,

     Puducherry-605 013.

2. The Authorised Signatory

    Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,

    No.17, Jamshedji TATA Road,

    Bombay-400 020.                                                                                   ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                     :  Thiru.I.Ilankumar, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: OP.1:  Thiru, L.Sathish, Advocate.

                                                            OP.2:  Thiru.B.Sethuram, Advocate.

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and sufferings and loss of money for the deficiency in service.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
3. To pass such further or other orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant was a consumer of HP Gas cylinder of second opposite party through the dealer, the first opposite party herein from 08.12.1997 and the consumer number is 613777 and he is having additional HP gas cylinder from 10.03.1998 onwards and using the said cylinder for household purpose only.   The complainant was regularly utilizing the opposite parties service from 08.12.1997 for booking the HP gas cylinder, refilling the HP gas cylinder and services etc and he had paid the bills without any default.  At the time of applying HP gas connection, the complainant was residing at No.27, 9^th Cross Extension, Rainbow nagar, Puducherry and later he shifted his residence to No.4, 4^th Cross, Krishna nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry and the same was informed to both the opposite parties and the delivery man also deliver the cylinder in the above said new address till 25.07.2012.  While this being the factum of reality, on 17.8.2012, the complainant went to the office of the first opposite party and booked for refilling the HP gas cylinder and office staff answered that the complainant HP gas cylinder connection is blocked and to contact the second opposite party. 

3.         It is further submitted by the complainant that as advised by the second opposite party, the complainant lodged a complaint with the second opposite party vide reference no.12056702 and till date no enquiry was conducted and not refilled the HP gas cylinder.  Several times, he went to the office of the first opposite party and contacted the second opposite party to restore gas connection but all his efforts ended in vain. This clearly amounts to derelictions of duty and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has spent rupees one thousand daily for his food and his family members. On 17.09.2012, the complainant has issued legal notice to both the opposite parties.  On receipt of legal notice, the opposite parties instantaneously restored the blocked HP gas connection and delivery man refilled the HP gas cylinder on 24.09.2012.  But no compensation was paid to the complainant by the opposite parties for his mental agony, pain and sufferings. Hence this complaint.

4.         The reply version of the first opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denied all the averment narrated in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. This opposite party denies that on 17.08.2012, the complainant approached this opposite party with a request for booking gas cylinder.  In fact the complainant had approached this opposite party only on 02.09.2012 for booking cylinder and this opposite party office staff had politely informed the complainant that his consumer was blocked by the second opposite party, which might be because of the fact that he did not submit necessary proof of his change in address. This opposite party has absolutely no role to play in blocking consumer number as it is the sole discretion of the second opposite party.   The complainant booked the complaint on 04.09.2012 and even without giving sufficient opportunity to the second opposite party to look into the complaint, he issued a legal notice on 17.09.2012.  Within four days of receipt of the legal notice, the complainant's grievance was resolved and the complainant received the cylinder.  The supply of gas to complainant was delayed hardly by 20 days from the date of his approaching this opposite party.  This opposite party was not in any way connected with blocking of complainant's consumer number and there is absolutely no negligence on the part of this opposite party.  The complainant has not suffered any loss or prejudice, either monetary or otherwise and therefore the complaint is absolutely frivolous.  There is absolutely no merits in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.         The reply version of the second opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denied all the averment narrated in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. This opposite party vehemently denied the averments that the complainant had intimated the change of address to this second opposite party.  The complainant has never contacted this opposite party at any point of time and even on 04.09.2012 the complaint was vague without required information but still this opposite party in the interest of consumer referred to the first opposite party for supply of cylinder.  This opposite party are the corporation subsidized by Government of India and not running business at profit to indulge in unfair trade practice  and moreover taking due care to serve its consumers and there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has not suffered mental agony, pain and sufferings and monetary loss.  Hence, pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

6          On the side of the complainant, no oral evidence was adduced but chosen to mark Ex.C1 to C7. On the side of the opposite parties, no oral or documentary evidence adduced.

7.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer to the opposite parties?
2. Whether any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:

            As per Exs.C1, C2 and C3, the complainant availed service from the opposite parties 1 and 2 as a consumer of LPG connection for valid consideration. Hence the complainant is the consumer for first and second opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleadings, reply version filed by both the opposite parties and Exs.C1 to 7 marked by the complainant.  Both the parties have not adduced any oral evidence.  From the records, it is clear that the complainant is the consumer of LPG connection and availed refill cylinder from the first opposite party as the agent of the second opposite party.  There is no dispute between the parties upto the period of 09.06.2012 on which cylinder was delivered in the new address vide Ex.C4.  The complainant submitted that on 17.08.2012 while approaching the first opposite party for booking the cylinder, the staff of the first opposite party said to the complainant that the HP gas cylinder connection is blocked by the second opposite party and advised to contact the second opposite party.  The complainant further submitted that he has complained with the second opposite party vide reference no.12056702 as advised by the first opposite party.  He has sent legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 vide Ex.C5 and acknowledged by them vide Exs.C6 and C7 and the effort taken to restore the connection ended in vain.

10.       The first opposite party submits that the complainant has approached them only on 02.09.2012 for booking cylinder and the staff had informed the complainant that the second opposite party alone blocked the connection for non-furnishing the proof of change in the address.  The first opposite party submitted that they are not in any way connected with the blocking the connection and within four days of receipt of Ex.C5, delivered cylinder to the complainant.

11.       The second opposite party submits that the complainant has not mentioned the date on which the change of address was effected and not filed any proof to establish the same. The complainant never approached the second opposite party on 04.09.2012 as alleged by the complainant and request made with the first opposite party for supply of cylinder.

12.       From their own records of the opposite parties Exs.C3 and C4, we have ascertained the new address of the complainant and delivery made in the new address by the first opposite party.  The first opposite party very well know about the change of address of the complainant.  The bounden duty of the first opposite party to intimate the same to the second opposite party.   There is no direct nexus between the complainant and the second opposite party.  The opposite parties have not chosen to reply for the Ex.C5.  Eventhough there is a dispute in the dates on which the complainant approached the opposite parties for booking and delivery of cylinder.  But the first opposite party has admitted that the complainant approached for booking cylinder.  The first opposite party has admitted that the second opposite party alone blocked the service and there is delay in booking and delivery of the cylinder by the opposite parties. The complainant has taken efforts to get the cylinder as a consumer for the changed address which is known to the first opposite party.

13.       The nature of the performance which is required to be maintained by the opposite parties was not adhered by them and it leads to the imperfection and inadequacy.  The period of delay for delivering the cylinder may be short but the sufferings suffered by the complainant are accountable.  The complainant did not file any proof for his expenses incurred for their food during that period.

14.       From the above discussion, it is clear that the opposite parties indulged in deficiency in service causing delay in delivering the cylinder to the complainant and the complainant suffered mental agony and sufferings.  To meet the ends of justice, it is required to compensate the complainant by the opposite parties jointly and severally.  Thus the complainant is entitled for compensation.

15.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision arrived in point no.2, this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-  as compensation and cost of Rs.5000/-  to the complainant.

Dated this the 23^rd  day of April 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  Nil

OPPOSITE PARTY S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTYS EXHIBITS: Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER