DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 2^nd   day of September, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of Filing: 16/05/2018    

     CC/67/2018

Vasanthakumari,

W/o. Small P. Varghese,

3/548, Thekkeparackal Veedu,

Thenur Post, Parali,  Palakkad – 678 612

(By Adv. T.V. Krishnadas)                                                       -           Complainant

                                                                                    Vs

1.  B&B Indane  Services,

     10/571, Aysha Complex,

      Major Road, Kottayi – 678 572

      Rep. by its Managing Director

2.  District Supply Officer,

      Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001

3.  Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

      Kozhikkode Area Office,

      PMK Towers, 2^nd Floor,

      Venad Road, Civil Station,

      Kozhikkode – 673 020

      Rep. by its Manager                                                         -           Opposite parties

      (OP1 by Adv. K. Dhananjayan

      OP2  by Authorised Representative

      OP3  by M/s. Menon & Pai)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Complainant is aggrieved by the delay in delivery of cooking gas cylinder to her by the 1^st opposite party and the hardships that allegedly befell her husband on account of the delayed delivery. Eventhough the complainant made repeated phone calls to the 2^nd opposite party seeking a direction to the 1^st opposite party to deliver the gas cylinder expeditiously, there was no response from the 1^st opposite party. As a result of the delay, complainant and her husband had to take food continuously from outside sources and the husband was afflicted with various ailments like chest pain and piles and had to undergo treatment. In view of the continuous ailments, her husband lost her employment at Coimbatore. The complainant seeks the expense of treatment underwent by her husband and compensation for loss of employment charged upon opposite parties 1 to 3. 
2. Opposite parties entered appearance.

i.          The 1^st opposite party filed version refuting complaint pleadings. They alleged that the complainant did not suffer from any infirmities as alleged and that she was having two cylinders. The complainant and her husband would usually cause problems to the delivery personnel of the 1^st opposite party. They would return the gas cylinders stating untenable contentions. They have refused to take delivery on the ground that swiping machine was not available with the delivery personnel.

ii.         Opposite party 2 filed version stating that they had made enquiries about the complaints made by the complainant and filed version based on the report based on the enquiry holding that it was the complainant herself who was at fault.

iii.        3^rd opposite party filed version adopting the pleadings of the 1^st opposite party. They also contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the relation between the 1^st  opposite party is on principal-to-principal basis.

3.         On going through the pleadings and counter pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving that she and her husband suffered as alleged owing to delay in delivery of cooking gas?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
4.   Reliefs,  if any ?

4.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A8 on the part of complainant.  Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the part of the opposite party 2, Exts. B5 to B13 were marked on the part of 3^rd opposite party and Exts. B14 and 15 were marked on the

part of opposite party 1.

Issue No. 1

5.         Indubitably, pleadings of the complainant are that the 1^st opposite party failed to deliver cooking gas (period of time remains unspecified). Resultantly, they could not cook at home and had to eat from hotels, resulting in chest pain and piles to the husband. Complainant’s husband had to undergo treatment and lost his job. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is claimed by the complainant for loss of employment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of employment. Over and above this claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the complainant has no other claims whatsoever. Hence the burden cast upon the complainant is to prove a direct and substantial nexus between non-delivery of cylinder and infection of disease and loss of employment.

6.         In order to prove his contentions, husband of the complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to Ext. A8. These exhibits are various medical reports issued after treatment of PW1, who is the husband of the complainant. We do not challenge the validity of these Exhibits. But nothing was brought in evidence to show that origin of these ailments had a direct and substantial nexus to  non-supply of cooking gas by the 1^st opposite party. Hence,  the claim for Rs. 50,000/- fails.

7.         The next claim is for Rs. 1,00,000/-, which  the complainant alleges, was a result of the absence arising out of hospitalization. In order to substantiate this pleading also, the complainant has not adduced any evidence. Hence this plea also fails.  We also find that the age of PW1 as stated in the exhibits as 60 years, which incidentally happens to be above or borders on retirement age in most sectors.

            Issue No. 2.

8.         Eventhough the case of the complaint revolves around the delay of the 1^st opposite party in delivering the gas cylinder, she has not made demand for any compensation whatsoever for alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Further she has not also adduced evidence or cared to cross the opposite party 1 to bring out deficiency in service, if any. Opposite parties 2 and 3 also has supported the 1^st opposite party. Reports of official authorities were also left unchallenged.

            Hence the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also.

9.         Resultantly, this complaint is dismissed.

            Issues 3 & 4

10.       In view of the findings in Issues 1 and 2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for.

            Eventhough cost should follow in the normal course, considering the fact that the complainant is a senior citizen, we are not imposing costs on her.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd  day of September,  2022.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                           Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Original Ultra Sound Report dated 24/1/17  

Ext.A2 (a)  - Original USG dated 26/1/2017    

Ext.A2(b) – Original of Investigation

Ext.A2(c) – Original result of blood count test

Ext.A2(d)  - Original ECG report

Ext.A3 – Original investigation report (bio chemistry)    

Ext.A4 – Original result (bio chemistry)

Ext.A5 series – 13 bills

Ext.A6 – Original communication dated 24/5/2016 issued by OP3 to complainant.

Ext.A7 – Original prescription dated 21/1/17 by Dr.Amruth Raj

Ext.A8 – OP ticket issued from Coimbatore Medical College Hospital  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

 Ext.B1 – Copy of report dated 12/3/18 submitted by TSO Alathur to DSO Palakkad.

Ext.B2 –  Copy of RTI application  dated 26/2/18

Ext. B3 – Copy of postal order appended to Ext.B2

Ext.B4 –  Copy of reply and appellate order in Ext.B2

Ext.B5 –  Copy of authorisation dated 13/9/2021

Ext.B6 –  Scanned copy of distributorship agreement between OPs1 & 3

Ext.B7 –  Scanned copy of communication dated 24/1/18  issued by complainant to OP1

Ext.B8 –  Scanned copy of communication dated 30/1/2018 issued by OP1 to District

                Collector

Ext.B9 –  Scanned copy of communication dated 07/03/2018  issued by OP1 to TSO, Alathur

Ext.B10 – Scanned copy of communication dated NIL issued from complainant to the 3^rd OP

Ext.B11 – Scanned copy of communication dated 26/3/2018 issued by OP3 to complainant

Ext.B12 ­-  Scanned copy of complaint filed by one Shahul Hameed before the Kottayi Police Station

Ext.B13 – Scanned copy of communication dated 22/1/2018 issued by OP1 to complainant

Ext.B14 -  Copy of report dated 12/3/18 submitted by TSO Alathur to DSO Palakkad.

Ext.B15 – Copy of version dated 14/6/2018 filed by  Dist.Supply Officer, Palakkad before

                  DCDRC, Palakkad

 Court Exhibit

 Nil

Third party documents

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Court Witness

Nil

Cost : Not   allowed.                                             

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.