Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/33/2016

Sonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

20 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	33 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	13.1.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	20.5.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sonia W/o Parveen r/o 185, B-Block, Near Bhawani Mata Mandir, Village Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Punjab State Office, Plot No.3A, Sector 19A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

2. The Deputy General Manager, Chandigarh Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Punjab State Office, Plot No.3A, Sector 19A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

 

3. The Area Manager, Chandigarh Area office, Indane Area Office, Chandigarh Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.) Tel; Bhawan Plot No.6A, Sector 19B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

4. The proprietor, Parveen K. Patheja, Parveen Gas Agency, Indane Gas Agency, SCF-8,  Sector 11D, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH. P.L. AHUJA                              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Parveen Authorized representative of complainant.
For OP No.1 to 3	:	Ms. Geeta Gulati, Adv.
For OP No.4		Sh. Amar Vivek, Adv.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant impressed with the representation of Indane Gas on their website to the effect that now avail LPG connection at your doorstep, applied online for new  Indane LPG connection on 2.9.2015 and she was accordingly released new connection on 9.9.2015 and SV released on 12.9.2015. It has been pleaded that Opposite Party No.4 provided all accessories and documents of the connection but did not provided the LPG cylinder neither at their office nor delivered the same at the doorstep of the complainant as per their claim. Rather the complainant was asked to collect the LPG cylinder from the Stadium of Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh on 15.9.2015.  When the distributor was asked to deliver the LPG cylinder at home it refused to do so and said that there is no provision to collect LPG at home.  As such under compelling circumstances the complainant had to collect the LPG cylinder from the Stadium. It has been pleaded that as per Marketing discipline Guidelines (MDG) for LPG Distributorship, 2014, made by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoP&NG)  Government of India, for non-home delivery of refill supplies come under irregularity and according rule 2.2.10, not given rebate on non home delivery comes under major irregularity. But the Opposite Parties did not give any rebate for non-home delivery to the complainant.  It has been further pleaded that the complainant on 3.12.2015 has given a refill request and the distributor failed to deliver it on the due date i.e. 6.12.2015 and delivered the same after 14 days i.e. on 20.12.2015. The distributor himself issued refill request order and delivered the same without  prior intimation to the complainant. Even the distributor uploaded wrong delivery data status in consumer online record.      It has been further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

         

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  /Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.           OPs No. 1 to 3 in their written statement stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OPs. It has been averred that as per clause 17 of the contract entered between  the corporation and the distributor the distributor shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation.  Therefore the answering OPs cannot be held to be liable  for the negligent act of Opposite Party No.4.  The role and responsibility of the answering OPs is to fill/refill the LPG cylinder and transfer the same to the distributor/gas agency for further delivering to the end of consumer. The role of the answering OPs ends after the LPG cylinders are delivered to the distributor as such the there is no role of the answering Opposite Parties regarding the issue involved in the case and they have unnecessarily been dragged into litigation.  Denying all other allegation leveled against them the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           Opposite Party No.4 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant comes under a category of preferred customers as she opted for preferred day and timings i.e. on Sundays and between  6 pm to 8 pm for delivery of refills at her residence. It is denied that  the LPG cylinder was not supplied to the petitioner at her door step rather since the complainant was a preferred timing customer, as such, the same was duly delivered to her on Sunday i.e. 20.12.2015. It has been denied that the complainant was asked to collect the cylinder from stadium at Khuda Ali Sher. It has been averred that the first cylinder was installed and delivered at the house of the petitioner under husband’s signatures on 15.9.2015. It has further been averred that on 4.12.2015 the delivery vehicle of the answering Opposite Party went to the residence of the complainant but he was not found there as such the booking was automatically stood cancelled. Thereafter, two refill orders i.e. 20.12.2015 and 6.3.2016 delivered at the residence of the complainant, which were accepted by her without any objection. It has further been averred that the delay in delivering the refill has only been on account of backlog, which is beyond the control of the answering Opposite Party and the same was also intimated to the complainant.  Rest of the allegations in the  have been denied being wrong.

 

5.          The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and 4, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

8.          The main allegation put forth by the complainant against the OPs especially Op No.4 is in respect of the fact that he had made a booking for LPG refill on 3.12.2015 and that Opposite Party No.4 failed to deliver it on 6.12.2015 and instead delivered the same after 14 days i.e. on 20.12.2015. On going through the reply filed by Opposite Party No.4, it is quite clear that the distributor Opposite Party No.4  had sent the LPG refill to the residence of the complainant on 4^th of December i.e. within 24 hours of booking but the same could not be delivered, as the customer i.e. complainant was not available at her residence. Annexure R-1 is the document supporting the contention of Opposite Party No.4. After the refill was returned undelivered to the distributor, for a few days there was an acute shortage of refill as is indicated by Annexure R-2 and R-3 and as such supply could not be made to the customers for some time. It is not out of place to mention that the supply of the LPG cylinder is completely dependent on its availability with the dealer which is enrolled by the company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 to 3. The supply can be done by distributor only on receipt of adequate no. of filled cylinders from the Indian Oil Corporation i.e. OPs No.1,2 and 3.      The 2^nd allegation against the OPs, as leveled by the complainant is that OPs did not give any rebate for non-home delivery to the complainant. Opposite Party No.4 has clarified in its written statement that a consumer who opts for specialized booking delivery on specific date and time has to pay an additional sum of Rs.25/- per refill if the delivery is to take place between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that the customer has to pay Rs.40/- if the delivery has to be made after 1800 hrs upto 2100 hrs. For this purpose the requisite charges are added automatically in the refill voucher so drawn by the Opposite Party No.4. In the present case the complainant made a direct complaint to India Oil Corporation i.e. Opposite Party No.3 and the concerned official of Indian Oil Corporation took the representative of the Opposite Party No.4 on the conference call on the telephone to enquire the reason for non-delivery. It was there that it came out that the consumer was not available at the house and that the delivery be made on the preferred day i.e. Sunday from 6 pm. to 8 pm. and this fact was duly noticed and inscribed in the records of Opposite Party No.4. The actual position of LPG Cylinders stock showing the acute shortage of the  supply of  refill leading to lot of backlog is reflected in Annexure R-2. Even on 13.12.2015 only 16 emergency cylinder under rule 25 for supply in emergency  to hospitals etc were available with  Opposite Party No.4 whereas 416 empty cylinders were available and there were no filled cylinders beyond 16 to make supply to the consumers in time. As such the supply on 13.12.2015 has only made to emergency customers like hospital etc. The next delivery date as preferred by the complainant was Sunday (20.12.2015) and the same was  made on this date only. The complainant on receiving the cylinder on 20.12.2015  never raised any objection either on that day or thereafter. All these objections were raised only while filing the present complaint. (13.1.2016). It would be significant to know that the new LPG connection was delivered  and install at the residence of the complainant on 12.9.2015 and thereafter two refill orders i.e. 20.12.2015 and 6.3.2016 i.e. on the date falling even after the date of present complaint have been delivered at the residence of the complainant which were duly accepted by the complainant without raising an iota of objection. The small delay in delivering one of the refill on 20.12.2015 has been caused by two factors, the one i.e. on 4.12.2015 the customer was not available at her house and as such the filled cylinder could not be delivered at her house. Now this fact has been clearly concealed by the complainant in the present complaint. The subsequent delay upto 13.12.2015 was caused due to the completely eratic supply of filled cylinders by Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3 to Opposite Party No.4. Last not the least the next due date fell on Sunday 20.12.2015 and needful was done diligently and earnestly by Opposite Party No.4 by supplying the cylinder on that date.  Even with regards to charging an extra amount of Rs.40 by Opposite Party No.4 from the complainant is concerned, the complainant herself in the present complaint has stated that a rebate of Rs.20/- from the reserved support price of the cylinder is to be given only in the case the distributors are not able to deliver the LPG refill due to reasons attributable to them. In the present case this does not hold good as there was an acute shortage of filled cylinder, which was totally beyond the control of Opposite Party No.4 as reflected in an Annexure R-2 and R-3. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any kind of rebate in the RSP (reserved support price).

9.          So far as OPs No.1,2 and 3 are concerned it appears that they have tried to completely wash their hand off from any responsibility with regard to supply of LPG refills by the distributor to the  consumers on the ground that the distributor always acted as principal and not as agents  of the corporation. This arguments of OPs No.1,2 and 3 is not correct due to the reason that distributor could supply LPG cylinder to the consumers  only on receipt  of adequate supply of the same from the OPs (1,2 and 3) which means that the OPs No.1 to 3 only failed to provide adequate supply of filled cylinders matching with the demand leading to a lot of backlog  and resulting in consumer complaints.  In addition in written arguments on behalf of OPs No. 1 to 3, the said Opposite Parties  have admitted that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the company and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act. They have further stated that the complainant has not made any complaint to them against the distributor i.e. Opposite Party No.4 as per the marketing guidelines and as such  there was no occasion for the marketing company to take any action  against the distributor.

10.          In view of the above detailed discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is false and frivolous and devoid of any merit and as such deserves dismissal. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. 

11.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

20.5.2016

                                         

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER