IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/158/2015.

 Date of Filing: 19.11.2015                                                                                   Date of Final Order: 16.06.2016

Baby Lala, W/O-Dulal Lala.

Vill.& P.O.-Arjunpur.

P.S.-Farakka. Dist.- Murshidabad       ………….…..…………………………… Complainant.

-Vs-

1).The Distributor Sital Gas Agency. District Code-120430.

 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. of Dhuliyan. P.O.- Dhuliyan.

P.S.-Samserganj.Dist.- Murshidabad, PIN.-742202.

2). The Manager. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

of 4&6 Currimbhoy Road. P.B. No.688,

 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.............................................. Opposite Parties.

                            Before:     Hon’ble President,               Anupam Bhattacharyya.

                                             Hon’ble Member,                 Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

   Hon’ble Member,                Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Smt Pranati Ali, Member.

Brief facts of the case are that this complainant being a consumer of OP No.1 booked gas on 29.07.2015 but it was not delivered to her. Then the complainant went to the office of the OP No.1 on 8.10.2015 for getting information regarding non delivery of gas cylinder. Then the OP No.1 stated that the gas cylinder was not supplied by the OP No.2. The complainant informed the matter to the OP No.2 for his attention regarding irregular supply of gas cylinder. The staff of the OP No.1 threatened that if she did not withdraw the complaint as lodged before OP No.2 in that circumstances the OP No.1 will disconnect the gas connection of this complainant. He further assailed that that during the delivery of gas cylinder the delivery man used to claim excess money; if it is not paid by the complainant then the delivery man refused the delivery and also used filthy languages towards the petitioner. The complainant informed the act of the deliveryman to the OP No.1 then the manager of the OP No.1 replied that if excess money is not given then delivery man would not delivery the gas in the house of the complainant. In that event the complainant will compel to purchase gas cylinder outside the office of OP No.1 by paying excess amount. The office of the OP No.1 created artificial crisis and sold gas cylinder in excess amount. The complainant requested the OP N0.1 to deliver gas cylinder in her favour but of no result then he send an advocate letter stating the irregular supply of gas and requested to normalize it. The OP No.1 took no measure as a result he compelled to file this case before this Forum getting no alternative praying reliefs as  prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.

                After getting notice from this Forum the OP No.1 appeared on 22.2.2016 by filing Vokalatnama, empowering Ld. Omprakash Banerjee as his/ her constituted attorney, who in his turn filed a petition praying time to file w/v on the date fixed. Thereafter no steps taken on behalf of the OP No.1 so the proceeding run ex-parte against the OP vide order dated 27.04.2016. Despite receiving notice OP No.2 did not turn up so the proceedings run ex parte against him.

            The complainant filed affidavit in chief in which he assailed that the OP No.1 never supplied the gas cylinder on the date as stated in the delivery slip/cash memo but used to write the date in the domestic Gas Consumer Card and the delivery boy used to demand excess money. The complainant on 08.10.2015 visited the office of the OP No.1 and enquired about the non-delivery of gas booked on 29.07.2015. Then OP No.1 replied that as the OP No.2 is not delivering the gas cylinder regularly so he i.e. OP No.1 cannot supply more than 4 cylinders in a year. He further assailed that if she did not withdraw the complaint lodged before the OP No.2 against the OP No.1 then her gas connection will disconnected. When the complainant protested the threat of the OP No.1 then the OP No.1 used filthy languages and told that if the complainant pays excess money more than the market price then he will get gas cylinder at any time.

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

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

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1).Whether the Complainant 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 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)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of the OP No.1 enjoying the gas connection of Bharat 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?             

After perusing the complaint petition, documents, affidavit-in-chief and hearing the arguments this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of OP No.1. She used to book gas cylinders on her need and got cylinders after a considerable period as it depicts from the refill receipt. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant did not get cylinder booked on 29.7.2015 after a prolonged period. She put the matter before the OP No.1 who did not solve the problem of the complainant. The complainant served an advocate letter dt. 10.10.15 and also informed the OP No.2 regarding the irregular supply of gas. But none took effective measure to mitigate the problem of the complainant. The act and attitude of the OP No.1 is not satisfactory. Getting no alternative the complainant sought redress of this Forum.

Getting notice from this Forum OP No.1 appeared by his advocate but filed no written version. The S/R in respect of notice sent to the OP No.2 returned. Despite receiving notice OP No.2 did not turn up so the proceedings run ex parte against them.

The complaint petition with affidavit is unchallenged one. The complainant getting no gas cylinder booked on 29.7.2015 knocked the door of the OP No.1 who in his turn took no measure to solve the problem but advised to pay excess money to the delivery man to get cylinder at house. She being a bona fide consumer of Op No.1 compelled to purchase the gas from open market as excess rate. The Op No.1 created an artificial crisis to snatch money from the customers. The complainant informed the matter to the OP No.2 but he remained silent regarding the matter. He is the right person to take appropriate action against his distributor. After receiving notice from the Forum he did not appear and filed no written version. The OP No.1 not only deficient in providing service to its consumers but also done unfair trade practice. Such distribution is under the control of Oil Corporation and the distributors are bound to follow the norms of delivery of gases throughout the nation. The OP No.1 is under liability to meet the valid demand of his customers. In this case he failed to meet the same for which is he liable to pay compensation to its consumer for harassment and mental agony.

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 prove her case beyond any doubt so the opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant for mental pain and agony.

             Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte with no order as to cost.

            The OP No.1&2 is directed to normalize the gas supply of the complainant within 20 days from the date of receiving this order. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000. jointly and/or severally to this complainant as compensation for harassment & mental agony within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.

         The OP No.1 is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000. in the consumer legal aid account for unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.

               In default, OPs are to pay Rs.50/- as fine for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

             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  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.  

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President,

 District Consumer Disputes               District Consumer Disputes                 District Consumer Disputes                 Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.      Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.       Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.