DATE OF DISPOSAL: 01.07.2024.

PER:  SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

            2. The complainant is the regular consumer of Indane gas and had subscribed for supply of Gas cylinders to his residence for domestic uses under consumer No. BI 25576 from the O.P.No.1 vide S.V.No. 11243740003126. The complainant had deposited the requisite deposits of Rs.1250/- for cylinder along with Rs.150/- for the regular in total sum of Rs.1400/- on 23.02.2010 to the O.P.No.1. In the meanwhile the complainant being transferred to his place of posting to Jagadalpur and in order to discontinue the supply of gas has surrendered the cylinder along with the S.V. and got his deposits back from the O.P.No.1.  After he came to Berhampur and again intended to get the gas connection of the IOCL have contacted with its Distributor the O.P.No.1 and then and there he met with one Srikant Mishra who is known to be the office staff of the O.P.No.1 and as per his instruction had submitted the KYC form along with other relevant documents in the office of the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 acknowledged the receipt of the same and given a copy of such receipt dated 13.09.2021 duly signed by the concerned Manager of the O.P.No.1. Further as per the instruction and suggestion of the said staff Srikant Kumar Mishra, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.2652/- to his account Number XX 7883 of State Bank of India on 13.09.2021 under UPI Ref No. 125667250894. Subsequently the IOCL has issued a message through mobile of the complainant on dated 11.10.2021 and sent a message to deposit Rs.1400/- and other charges Rs.0/- to the company for supply of gas connection to his household premises and yet again on the same day of 11.10.2021 the portal message of the company has sent a message to the mobile phone of the complainant that invoice has been generated for Rs.947/- and also therein it has mentioned that the order delivered with Invoice No. 5-101672585580 but such delivery has not been done neither by the O.P.No.1 nor the O.P.No.2. After getting such intimation through online message, the complainant visited the office and also consulted with the said office staff of O.P.No.1 regarding delivery of the gas cylinder to his household premises but he could not answered properly for which the complainant already paid the amount to the tune of Rs.2652/- to the account of the said office staff Srikant Kumar Mishra through online money transfer to his account but yet he has not got supply of the gas to his household for domestic usages. As the complainant sustained much problems along with the complainant sustain monetary loss, mental agony. The complainant is suffering from hypertension in this situation the O.Ps are intentionally harassing to the complainants to put him into great hardship. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to refund an amount of Rs.2652/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.

            4. The O.P.N o.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is started that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. In para 1 & 2 of the complaint the Annexure-1 consumer card which has submitted by the complainant is closed since long which cannot be treated as valid domestic gas consumer card of the complainant in the present case. The said passbook has issued on 23.02.2010 and it has been surrendered by the complainant which shifted to Bhubaneswar from Berhampur the complainant corroborated the same in his complaint at para-3. Hence Annexure 1 has no evidentiary value in accordance with law of the land. When there is no privity of contract between the O.P.No.1 and the complainant now, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer of the O.P.No.1 under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law. The complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone.  In Para -4 of the complaint, the O.P.no.1 like to submit that Srikanta Mishra is neither the office staff nor related to the O.P.No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily of this score alone. The acknowledgement as Annexure 2 has submitted by the complainant is not bearing any authenticated seal and authorized signature of the O.P.No.1. The complainant has fabricated the Annexure 2 documents to file this false claim and the complainant has not approached the respected Commission with clean hand hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The O.P.No.1 does not know whether the message delivered to the complainant from the IOCL on 11.10.2021 through mobile, issuance of portal message regarding generated of invoice and delivery of order with invoice. The present consumer/complaint by the complainant sans merit as non-joinder of the necessary party in the present case. The entire contention of the complaint is not related to the O.P.No.1 at all. When there are no deposits made to the O.P.No.1 it is wrong and incorrect to claim the refund of the amount of Rs.2652/- from the O.P.No.1 rather the complainant has himself deposited the said amount in personal account of one Srikant Mishra as admitted in his complaint in the Annexure 3 and Para 5 & 6. When there is no unfair dealing and negligence in the service, the O.P.No.1 is neither responsible to return the any amount to the complainant nor liable to pay compensation of rupees one lakh along with interest from the date of filing of this case and litigation cost. On peruse of the entire contention of the complaint, it is a vexatious complaint made by the present complainant to harass and blackmail the O.P.No.1 to collect huge amount as prayed for. The allegations of deficiency in service wholly misconceived, groundless, false, untenable in law besides being extraneous and irrelevant having regard to the facts and circumstance of the matter under reference. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case.

            5. The O.P.No.2 & 3 filed written version through their advocate. It is stated that all the averments made in the complaint petition are all not true, correct and to the knowledge of these opposite parties. All the averments and contentions raised by the complainant in his complaint petition are wrong and denied, as if each one of the same has been expressly traverse and reputed herein. In Para 1,2, 3 and 4 that the complainant is the regular consumer on Indane gas and had subscribed for supply of gas cylinders to his residence for domestic uses from the O.P.No.1 and the complainant had deposited the requisites deposits for cylinder along with the regulator with the O.P.No.1, while taking connection of gas to his house. In the meanwhile the complainant has surrendered the cylinder along with the SV and got his deposits back from the O.,P.No.1 and after he came to Berhampur again intended to get the gas connection of the IOCL have contacted the O.P.No.1 etc. are based on records. The subsequent allegations regarding his contact with one Srikant Kumar Mishra who is known to be the office staff of the O.P.No.1 and as per instruction and suggestion of the staff Srikant Kumar Mishra, the complainant had transferred an amount to his account number etc. are not to the knowledge of these O.P. No.2 & 3 and complainant is put to strict proof of the same, supported by relevant documents. Moreover, all the understanding and communications among the complainant, Srikant Mishra and the O.P.No.1 were not within the knowledge of these O.Ps. As per the standard operating procedure, the dealer while installing gas connection has to enter the same in the online software called SDMS. Accordingly, the messages requesting to deposit Rs.1400/- as security deposit amount i.e. Rs.1250/- towards cylinder +Rs.150/- towards regulator musts have been communicated to the customers. The rest of the allegations made in the Para No. 6 are not to the knowledge of these opposite parties and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. M/s Berhampur Indane Service is a distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, at Berhampur and O.P.No.2 is the Head of operation of Indian Oil Corporation Limited for the state of Odisha and O.P.No.3 is the senior Executive representation the management of India Oil Corporation Limited. So the O.P.No.2 is representing in his official capacity for both the O.Ps i.e. O.P.No.2 & 3. As there is no deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice by this O.Ps in this case, nor it has caused any mental agony or hardship to the complainant, the complainant has not made any specific claim against these O.Ps. Hence these O.Ps are not liable to pay any amount, compensation and interest to the complainant. This case involves complex question of facts, evidence and law. Hence this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try the same and the matter can be properly adjudicated in the Civil Court. This complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Hence the O.P. No.2 & 3 prayed to dismiss the case.

            6. On the date of hearing the Commission heard from the parties and perused the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavits, written arguments and documents filed by both the parties minutely.

            On analysis of the case, it is revealed that, to obtain the lpg, the complainant further as per the instruction and suggestion of Srikant Kumar Mishra, had transferred an amount of Rs.2652/- to his account Number XX 7883 of State Bank of India on 13.09.2021 under UPI Ref No. 125667250894. In view of the complaint’s own admission and Annexure 3 in the consumer complaint that the complainant has paid amount to one Srikanta Kumar Mishra, but not the OP no.1. hence there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP No.1. And in the present case, the complainant has not impleaded Sri Srikanta Kumar Mishra as necessary party. Law is well settled that, no effective Order could have been passed in absence of the necessary party.

In catena of case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, “it could thus be seen that a ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. It has been held that if a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case also, Srikant Kumar Mishra is a necessary party. The Commission is relying upon Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 of 2011 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Siraram Bhedi (D) thr. LRS. And others, is not inclined to allow the complaint.

It is apparent from the case record that, in view of the opinion of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 in accordance to the standard operating procedure, when any information enter online, the messages requesting to deposit Rs.1400/- as security deposit amount i.e. Rs.1250/- towards cylinder + Rs.150/- towards regulator must have been communicated to the customers. But in the instant case the complainant has not approached the Commission in clean hands as the Annexure 4(1)/(2) and Annexure 5 did not reflects the date and year of the messages. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly and correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. The Apex Court has repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Art. 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in other courts and judicial forums.

In the light of the above decision of laws, the Commission dismissed the complaint of the Complainant against all the Opposite Parties for non-joinder of party and in view of Doctrine of Clean Hands. No order as to cost.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.

Pronounced on 01.07.2024.