Karnataka

Koppal

CC/14/2

Sri. Ismail Getin, Hasan Road, Koppal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bharat Gas Distributors, Koppal. - Opp.Party(s)

M V Mudgal.Adv

18 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD CIVIL COURT BUILDING, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOPPAL
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/2
 
1. Sri. Ismail Getin, Hasan Road, Koppal.
S/o: Hanif Sab Getin, Age: 42 Years, Occ; Advocate, R/o: Hasan Road, Koppal
Koppal
Karnataka.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, Bharat Gas Distributors, Koppal.
K.F.C.S.C. APMC Complex, Koppal
Koppal
Karnataka.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE K.V.Krishnamurthy. PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. R.BANDACHAR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:M V Mudgal.Adv, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: M B Sajjan Adv, Advocate
ORDER

Per K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

The complainant is a customer of Bharat Gas Distributors, Koppal with a customer registration No. 7488.  On 27-9-2013 he has booked for supply of cylinder by way of replacement.  Since the supply was not done for 47 days, the complainant has filed a complaint to the distributor on 13-11-2013; On the same day supply was effected.  The contention of the complainant is that his 7 family members were compelled to take food outside his house on account of non-supply of cylinder in time, for which he has spent Rs.20,000/- and he has spent Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses because of taking food outside the home.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum on 01-1-2014 seeking compensation of Rs.95,000/-.

 

            2.  The claim is contested by the Distributor on the ground that sometime after the booking for replacement of the cylinder on 27-9-2013, the delivery boy had gone to house of the complainant but the existing cylinder was not empty and therefore he was sent back and immediately after complaint on 13-11-2013 cylinder was replaced and hence there is no deficiency in service.

 

            3.  The written version of the OP has been verified by the Manager, Bharat Gas Distributors.  This was filed on 11-4-2014.  The complainant filed affidavit evidence on 25-4-2014.  In the said affidavit evidence, the complainant has not disputed the contention of the OP.  Therefore we accept the contention of the OP and hold that there is no deficiency in service in the facts of the particular case.  Consequently the complaint having no merits is dismissed.

           

                                                                                  

// ANNEXURE //

 

 

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant / Respondent.

 

 

      Ex.A.1

   

Letter written to the OP.

13.11.2013

 

      Ex.A2

   

Xerox Copy of the Consumer Book

   -

 

 

 

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.

 

 

P.W.1

Ismail Getin S/o Hanif Sab Getin, R/o Koppal.

 
 
[HONORABLE K.V.Krishnamurthy.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. R.BANDACHAR]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.