Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/474/2015

R.Muthukrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, (LPG Sales), Indian Oil Corparation Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

R.Muthukrishnan

06 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 18.12.2015

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 06.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.474/2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

R. Muthukrishnan,

S/o. Mr. G. Rengasami,

House No.10, Eswaran Nagar,

Ramapuram,

Chennai – 600 089.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                

 

                                                                                             ..Versus..

 

1. The General Manager (LPG Sales),

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Tamil Nadu Sales Office,

Indian Oil Bhawan,

No.139, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. Jaya Gas Agency,

(Indane Distributor),

Old No.10, New No.34, Anna Salai,

Valasarawakkam,

Chennai – 600 116.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant                        : Party in person

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party : Mr. R. Ravi

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. S. Ravichandran & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation and punitive damages to the complainant for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties with exemplary cost  to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he booked Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) on 29.07.2014 with the opposite parties through customer care number vide booking No.207565.  Usually after registering /booking, the cylinder will be delivered within 1 or 2 days without any default.  The complainant submits that he has received the following messages from the 1^st opposite party on the complainant’s mobile No.9445268272 which reads as follows:

“Booking for consumer number 16825 is registered and the booking reference number is 207565.  Join a car pool to-day and save fuel, for you and the Nation”.

On 06.08.2014, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties by Speed post.

The impugned refill cylinder booking dated:29.07.2014 was confirmed and cylinder will be delivered on 09.08.2014.  There is a delay of 11 days which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complainant sent another notice dated:04.10.2014 for claiming compensation.   The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated:29.10.2014 stating that:

“Sir, the present procedure of Gas booking is through I.V.R.S. directly from the consumer phone to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.   They release the quantity based on consumers booking through I.V.R.S. system.   We deliver the cylinders through cash memo promptly with intimation to the customer’s mobile promptly with intimation to the customer’s mobile through SMS.   As per list sent to us by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  We strictly follow the seniority of booking while delivering the cylinder in intimation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  The entire process of booking, preparation of cash memo and delivery of cylinders as per seniority are as per cash memos is monitored by Indian Oil Corporation”.

A reminder notice dated:10.11.2014 from the complainant to the 1^st opposite party has yielded the response in the form of their reply dated:20.11.2014 disputing the instant consumer grievance stating that the complainant’s statement that the 1^st opposite party was indulging in restrictive trade practice does not hold good.  The complainant submits that the delay in delivery of the cylinder caused much more hardship and inconvenience.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., is a Public Sector Oil Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its Registered Office at Mumbai and Tamil Nadu State Office is located at the above mentioned address.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant by alleging that for the booking cylinder made on 29.07.2014 cylinder was delivered on 09.08.2014 and this long gap in delivery is indication of ‘restrictive trade practice’ and the same is framed so that the complainant will be frustrated and therefore forced to opt for non subsidized LPG begs logic and common sense.   The complainant fails to demonstrate any wanton deficiency of service on the part of the either of the opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that there was strike at the bottling plant of this opposite party and hence, there was difficulty in accommodating the entire demand spread over the state and therefore, there was some delay in delivering refill expeditiously to the customers. As a matter of fact, the overall refills obtained was around 11,850 only as against more than 19000 booking for that period during which the complainant suffered the alleged deficiency in service.   Therefore, during hard times like the bottling plant going on strike etc. there is bound to be discrepancy between actual demand and supply of LPG refill and consequently delay is bound to happen causing inconvenience to the consumer, which is beyond the control of this opposite party.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the 1^st opposite party granted a distributorship to the 2^nd opposite party for to deliver the Liquid Petroleum Gas to the customer who booked through I.V.R.S. system.  The said I.V.R.S. booking system is that the consumer shall book their cylinder over phone to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and once it is booked from the customer phone, immediately they will receive the message indicating the Booking Number and prior to delivery of cylinder the customer will get the message by mentioning the date of delivery.  The 2^nd opposite party being the distributor under the organize of the Indian Oil Corporation, refill the cylinders to the customer on priority basis.   The main allegation of the complainant is that he has booked for cylinder on 29.07.2014, booking No.207565 and on 09.08.2014 the cylinder was delivered to him and therefore, the delay 11 days is amounting to deficiency in service and prayed an award of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation and punitive damages to the complainant for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties with exemplary cost and to oblige the opposite parties, more particularly the 1^st opposite party.   

4.     The 2^nd opposite party denies that the 11 days delay in delivery of cylinder to the complainant is amounting to deficiency in service.  The 2^nd opposite party states that he issued a reply notice dated:15.10.2015 through their Counsel and explained the delay by calling upon the complainant to withdraw the notice dated:04.10.2015 despite of the same, the complainant has filed this complaint for flimsy reason to make compensation against this opposite party.  The work to work basis as to the status from the date of booking till the date of delivery of cylinders is system generated under the control of Indian Oil Corporation and the cylinders are refilled as per the seniority basis.   The 2^nd opposite party has no way connected with the booking and delivery order, they can only act as a postman to deliver the LPG only after getting message from the 1^st opposite party for delivery.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and document Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

6.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation, punitive damage and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

 

7.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant and 1^st opposite party’s Counsels also. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) on 29.07.2014 as per Ex.A9 with the opposite parties through customer care number.  Ordinarily, immediately after registering /booking, the cylinder will be delivered within 1 or 2 days without any default.  The impugned refill cylinder booking dated:29.07.2014 was confirmed and cylinder will be delivered on 09.08.14 as per Ex.A14 & Ex.A15.  There is a delay of 11 days which amounts to restrictive trade practice.  But on a careful perusal of entire records, there is no conditions stipulated by the opposite parties that after the customer has booked for refill cylinder, it shall be delivered in a particular day.   Considering the usage of the customers, the opposite parties used to deliver the refill cylinder within a short period namely; 1 or 2 days or within a real time.   In this case, the refilled cylinder  was delivered only after 11 days.  Since there was no proper and substantial reason attributed by the opposite parties before filing the case even after exchange of notice.   The only reason given is strike and was published in newspaper.  But no document filed in this Forum.   The allegation of strike raised by the opposite parties at the very inception right from the notice till arguments has not denied by the complainant in this case.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the delay in delivery of the cylinder caused much more hardship and inconvenience.  But there is no iota of proof in this case.  The punitive damage attributed and claimed is imaginary.  Because the complainant never pleaded and proved the necessity of refill cylinder on the date of booking till the date of delivery and delay leads damages. 

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the 1^st   opposite party, India Oil Corporation Limited subsidised LPG extended to the marginalized section of the consumers.   The 2^nd opposite party is the agency of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant who is the consumer who books though IVRS refill cylinder booking system over phone to the 1^st opposite party received the messages indicating the booking number and present you delivery of the cylinder will be given SMS.  The complainant booked gas cylinder on 29.07.2014 and the cylinder was delivered on 09.08.2014 after a delay of 11 days.   The allegation of frustration restrictive trade practice, punitive damages are imaginary.   Before filing the case, the complainant issued notices for which, suitable reply sent by the opposite parties in clear terms that there was a strike at the bottling plan of the 1^st opposite party.  There was a difficulty in accommodating the entire demand spread over the state resulting the delay in delivery the refilled cylinder.  The complainant himself admitted in the complaint and proof affidavit except this occasion of the booking date of 29.07.2014, all other occasions, the cylinder was delivered within the reasonable time.  There was no allegation also. The complainant sent notice dated:04.10.2014 as per Ex.A16 for which the  opposite parties 1 & 2 sent replies dated:29.10.2014 & 26.11.2014 as per Ex.A17 & Ex.A19 respectively through which, the complainant came to know about the strike and filed this complaint in order to harass the opposite party.  Further contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the compensation claimed is imaginary and exorbitant.  The allegation that at every time from the date of booking of cylinder to the delivery of the cylinder, the complainant expended a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day for getting food etc are imaginary because, there is no iota of any evidence produced in this Forum.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	23.04.2001	Copy of Indane Consumer Subscription Voucher and Domestic Gas Customer Card for Consumer No.16825
Ex.A2	18.06.2013	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A3	15.10.2013	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A4	25.11.2013	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A5	30.01.2014	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A6	31.03.2014	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A7	08.05.2014	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A8	08.08.2014	Copy of Indane Distributor Refill Supply Cash Memo
Ex.A9	29.07.2014 at 10.13 a.m.	Copy of SMS from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10	31.07.2014 at 01.29 p.m.	Copy of SMS from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A11	31.07.2014 at 01.49 p.m.	Copy of SMS from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A12	On or after 31.07.2014	Copy of message of the 1st opposite party – “Users giving up LPG subsidy”
Ex.A13	06.08.2014	Copy of letter from the complainant to opposite parties
Ex.A14	09.08.2014 07.30 a.m.	Copy of SMS from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A15	09.08.2014 02.00 p.m.	Copy of SMS from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A16	04.10.2014	Copy of letter from the complainant to opposite parties
Ex.A17	29.10.2014	Copy of letter from the 2nd opposite party to complainant
Ex.A18	10.11.2014	Copy of letter from the complainant to 1st opposite party with copy to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A19	26.11.2014	Copy of letter from the 1st opposite party to complainant

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

20.07.2016

Copy of news published in “Dhina Dhandhi” which was downloaded from google regarding the stike of the opposite parties

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT