THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 53/2011
Saturday, the 29th day of October , 2011
Petitioner : Joy M.T.,
Mannamparambil House,
Nariyanani P.O
Ponkunnam – 68 506.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Manager,
Marymatha Agencies (Indane Oil)
P.N.P Road, Ponkunnam.
2) Lohithakshan,
Deputy Sales Manager (LPG Sales)
Indian Oil Corporation
C/o. Cammander Gas Agency,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Zakhir Hussain)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 1..3..2011 is as follows.
Petitioner is a domestic LPG consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 23652. According to the petitioner from July 2009 first opposite party has not supplied filled gas cylinders to the petitioner promptly. Lastly on 23..11..2010 petitioner replaced the refilled cylinder. After 3 months from the said date opposite party had ot supplied refilled gas cylinders to the petitioner. On 26..11..2010. Petitioner filed a petition to the District Collector, Kottayam. District Collector in open forum, directed the opposite party to supply refilled cylinder to the petitioner. On 21..1..2011 petitioner send a registered notice to the opposite party. Opposite party accepted the notice but had not redress the grievance of petitioner. According to petitioner from 2009 on wards opposite party home delivered the refilled cylinders but after 2009 opposite party was reluctant to give home delivery. Petitioner states
-2-
that act of the opposite party in not delivering the cylinder in time and stoppage of home delivery amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a compensation in the tune Rs. 24,850/-.
First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. First opposite party admitted the LPG connection of the petitioner with first opposite party. According to the first opposite party there is no delay in supplying the gas cylinder. It is true that petitioner lastly on 23..11..2010 taken the refilled cylinder. Further up to 24..9..2010 opposite party uninterruptedly delivered refilled cylinder to the petitioner. During the period of August 2010 to December 2010 there was shortage of refilled cylinder. On 6..10..2010 petitioner booked for a refilled cylinder. Due to the shortage first opposite party can able to deliver the refilled cylinder only on 23..11..2010. Concealing the above fact petitioner complained in the open forum Dtd: 26..11..2010, conducted by the District Collector. District Collector directed the opposite party’s husband to refilled cylinder to the petitioner. But later on verification it was noticed that already refilled cylinder was supplied on 23..11..2010. Later without prior booking of refilled cylinder petitioner, on 20..1..2011, issued a registered notice to the opposite party stating that he is not receiving any refilled cylinder after 18 days of booking. First apposite party had given reply stating that they are is ready to give the petitioner refilled cylinder. On 1..2..2011 petitioner booked for another refilled cylinder as on 8..2..2011 a refilled cylinder was given. According to the first opposite part now petitioner is not residing in the delivery limit of the 1st opposite party. . So, the home delivery of the
-3-
petitioner is not at all possible. According to the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that he conducted an inspection at the premises of 1st opposite party on 28..1..2011. On inspection it is seen that petitioner booked for a refilled cylinder on 6..10..2010 and refilled cylinder was delivered on 23..11..2010. During the said period there was shortage of LPG further on inspection second opposite party does not find any delivery of refilled gas cylinder overcoming the booking. After 23..11..2010 petitioner had not booked any cylinder. Second opposite party further contented that petitioner’s residence is not within the delivery limit of first opposite party. So, first opposite party cannot be compelled for a home delivery to petitioner. According to second opposite party there is no deficiency in service. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to
A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of the opposite party and Ext. C1 report of advocate commissioner.
Point No. 1
Petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the following aspects.
i) First opposite party had not delivered refilled cylinders in time
ii) First opposite party had not done home delivery to the petitioner.
-4-
Opposite party produced the customer history card of the petitioner . Said
document is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B2 is another customer history card of the petitioner. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that during 27..7..2007 to 14..7..2010 prompt delivery was done by the petitioner. From Ext. B2 it can be seen that on 6..10..2010 petitioner had booked for refilled cylinder and on 23..11..2010 delivery was effected. 2nd Opposite party, Deputy Manager of the LPG Sales, opined that during 23..11..2010 there was shortage in LPG. So, the inference that can be drawn is that during 27..7..2007 to 1..2..2011 there is no purposeful delay in delivery of refilled cylinders.
The second act of deficiency alleged by the petitioner is that first opposite party has not done home delivery to petitioner. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that during 27..7..2007 to 14..7..2010 home delivery was done by first opposite party. Further more, residence address of the petitioner shown in Ext. B1 is Kodikattu building, 10th mile, Ponkunnam. From Ext. B2 it can be seen that the present address of the petitioner is Mannamparambil, Nariyani P.O, Ponkunnam . In Ext. B2 it is stated that the customer type is outside area. Ext. B4 is the letter issued by the Oil company to the secretary, Consumer Association, Chirakkadavu. From Ext. B4 it can be seen that free delivery zone for Ponkunnam and Kanjirappally is 2.5 km radius from respective town. From Ext. B5 document the District Collector clarifies that the radial distance measurement will be as per PWD norms and ‘O’ point should be ‘O’ point from the godown of the gas outlet in the nearest motorable road to the consumer. C1 is the commission report filed by the advocate commissioner appointed by the fora. In Ext. C1 report the commissioner reported that the distance between the
-5-
go down of first opposite party and motorable road of the petitioner is 4..00 km. In our view since the residence of the petitioner is not within the delivery area of the first opposite party they cannot be compelled to give home delivery of LPG cylinder. In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of October , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner to the first opposite party.
Ext. A2: Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner to the first opposite party
Ext. A3: Copy of domestic gas customer card of the petitioner.
Ext. A4: Copy of reply notice issued by first opposite party to the petitioner.
Ext. A5: Postal AD card
Ext. A6: Postal AD card
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Customer history card Dtd: 2..7..2007
Ext. B2: Customer history card Dtd: 22..7..2010
Ext. B3: Copy of reply notice Dtd: 27..1..2010
Ext. B4: Copy of letter Dtd: 18..12..2998
Ext. B5: Copy of proceedings Dtd: 26..7..99
C!: Commission Report filed by Adv. Pathros Chacko.
