ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            Complaint for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and other reliefs.

The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant is the consumer of an LPG connection vide consumer No.oG8269 .   The 1^st opp.party is the distributed by oriental gas agency, Market Junction Kottarakkara .   The gas cylinder that she has lastly procured was on 5.2.2008 and  it was  after more than six months since its receipt.  When she  had applied for fresh cylinder, the 1^st opp.party denied her the facility and abused her instead.  In the said circumstances she

lodged her complaints and registered her protests with various authorities including the Hon’ble Minister for petroleum but there is no response whatsoever.  Hence she was forced to file this complaint before the Forum for necessary orders so that she will be supplied with a fesh refilled cylinder together with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the financial loss she suffered and insult she was subjected to from the side of the 1^st opp.party.  Hence the complaint.

          The first opp.party filed version contending, interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant is the customer of 1^st opp.party with good relationship for the last 11 years.   The 1^st opp.party never abused or insulted her or denied for refilled cylinder.   The 1^st opp.party informed to the complainant to give a request letter as per the circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the distributor vide clause 6 stated that it is observed that dead customers  [customer who have not booked/drawn refill during the past six months or more period] are being activated with any backup/approval.  within one year cases may be revived by distributors by collecting a request letter from the customer.   The complainant did not file request letter before the 1^st opp.party’s office.   There is n personal reasons on The part of the 1^st opp.party to humiliate or insult the complainant.  Hence the 1^st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The 2^nd and 3^rd opp.parties filed a joint version contending that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it is clearly mentioned in clause No.6 it is observed that dead customers [customers who have not booked/drawn refill during the past six months or more period] are being activated without any back up/approval.  Please note that within one year cases may be revived by distributors by collecting a request letter and copy of SV from the customer and after verification of the customer signature.  However, all such records be produced to the field officer for verification as and when field officer visits the distributorship.   More than one year cases  refer to Field Officer/Customer Service Cell at Area Office.   The complainant himself admits that she had not taken the cylinder for more than 6 months.     Hence the  opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1  is examined.   Exts. P12 to P8 are marked.

For the opp.parties DW.1 and 2 are examined.   Exts.D1 and D2 are marked.

POINTS:

From the evidence it is revealed that the complainant had lastly procured gas refilled cylinder on 5.2.2008 and doe3s not take or booked for a refilled cylinder before completion of six months.   The complainant in her complaint itself admits the said facts.   Complainant’s case is that as per the information from the 1^st opp.party’s side she went to the 1^st opp.party’s office and made a written request for a refilled gas cylinder.  1^st opp.party totally denied the said contention of the complainant.   This fact is proved by the complainant by producing Ext.P3 documents.  Opp.parties challenged the signature of the complainant in Ext. P3  On verification of the signature in Ext.P3 and the complaint it is seen that the signature in Ext.P3 is differed from the signature in the complaint filed on 14.10.2008 before the Forum and Ext. D2.  Hence Ext.P3 cannot be accepted as on evidence to show that the complainant has filed written application to 1^st opp.party.   The complainant admitted that she had lastly procured gas refilled cylinder on 5.2.2008 and does not take or booked for a refilled cylinder before completion of six months.   As per clause 6 in Ext. D1 it is observed that  dead customer [who has not booked/drawn refill during the past six months or more period] are being activated with any backup/approval.  Here from the evidence it is seen that the complainant did not file any request letter before the 1^st opp.party’s office.  Acc0ording to opp.parties 2 and 3 they admit that they are issuing circulars to the distributors from time to time in order to make the distribution and delivery more smooth and not to protect or  learn anybody.  On considering the entire evidence the complainant failed to prove that she has submitted application as per clause 6 in Ext. D1.

     In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  1^st opp.party is directed to supply refilled gas cylinder to the complainant on submitting application as per clause 6 in Ext. D1.  No cost or compensation is ordered.

Dated this the 30^TH         day of March, 2011.

                                                                              :

.

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Virches George

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Receipt dt. 5.2.2008

P2. – Customer card

P3. – Letter dated 27.8.2008

P4. – Copy of Fax Letter issued to  Central Minister

P5. – Letter to Central Govt. Secretary

P6. – Letter to District Collector

P7. – Letter dated 26.3.2009

P8. –Report from Public Information Officer.

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – N. Udaya Bhanu

DW.2. – T.C. Koshy

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – General guidelines and operating procedures for distributors

D2. – Voucher.