IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/65/2015.

 Date of Filing: 02.06.2015                                                                   Date of Final Order: 30.08.2016

Saira  Banu.

W/O- Lt. Insar Ali Sarkar.Vill. & P.O. Raninagar.

P.S.- Raninagar. Dist.- Murshidabad. PIN.-742308.             ………….…..…………………………… Complainant.

-Vs-

1).The Proprietor

Distributor Sultana Indane Gramin Vitarak.

Vill.& P.O.-Babaltali.P.S. Raninagar.

Dist.- Murshidabad, PIN.-742308.

2). The Chief Manager.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Eastern Region,34A Nirmal Chandra Street.

Kolkata-700013............................................... Opposite Parties.

                                          Before:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

 Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

                Brief facts of the case are that this complainant being a consumer of OP No.1 booked gas on 22.10.2014 but it was not delivered to him till 01.06.2015. During the period of taking gas connection on 30.01.2012 the OP told that the complainant can avail a cylinder every 50 days and he can book for the same. Then the complainant many a times requested the OP to deliver the gas cylinder but the OP did not pay any heed to that which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Thereafter the complainant by a letter dated 01.04.2015 asked the OP to serve the gas cylinder for his daily usage in every 50 days otherwise he will take necessary action. Then the complainant lodged a telephonic complaint to a toll free number at Delhi but nothing happened and he is not getting gas till date. For non delivery of the gas on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service on the part OP for which the complainant filed the instant complaint for redressal as prayed in the complaint petition.

           The OP No.1 appeared by its agent and filed written version denying the allegation as leveled against him. He averred that OP No.1 is a mere distributor of Indane and the complainant took gas connection and cylinder was delivered to him on booking. The OP No.1 does deliver the Gas cylinder as per supply by Indane. This answering OP No.1 never assured the Complainant that they would deliver LPG cylinder after every fifty days. If there be any shortage of supply then the OP has nothing to do. The petitioner have to prove that he booked for a LPG cylinder on 22.10.2014, so question of supply the LPG cylinder does not arise. The petition is bad for defect of parties as Indane was not been made a party in this case. 

      The OP No.2 appeared by filing written version denied the allegation as leveled against him and averred that the OP No.1 has been appointed under a special scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak, formulated by the ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India where under LPG Distributors are appointed with respect to a cluster of villages for providing LPG cylinders in areas/ villages where LPG penetration is minimal. Since the distributors under RGGLV scheme is appointed in areas with minimal LPG penetration, to make these distributorships economically viable many special conditions have been prescribed for its operations in line with the guidelines of MOPNG.  As per this scheme the consumer is required to carry the empty cylinder to the LPG Distributors place and collect a refilled LPG cylinder and there is no provision for reimbursement carrying charges to the customer in such cases. There is no provision for advance booking of LPG cylinder in case of distributors appointed under RGGLV scheme. In accordance with the complaint petition the complainant alleged that she booked a LPG cylinder which appears to be palpably false in view of the fact there is no provision for advance booking in case of the present opposite party. Nowhere in the complaint petition is it stated that she went to the distributor for LPG refill and she has been denied by the distributor to provide the same. That as per the records available with the present opposite party the complainant has not taken any LPG cylinder from the distributor since 21.09.2014. After perusing the LPG cylinder upliftment history of the complainant it appears that the booking date & delivery date of the LPG cylinder to the complainant is same implying thereby that the date on which she went to the distributor for LPG refill, she has been provided the same without any delay. Hence the present opposite party denies and disputes the allegations made therein save and except what are matters of record. And also prayed to expunge the name of the present opposite party no.2 from this proceeding.

               The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which she assailed that the OP No.1 did not supply the gas cylinder as booked on 22.10.2014  but till date the OP is deficient in providing service to this complainant for which he is under liability to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- for cost and harassment.

             The advocate on behalf of the complainant and OP advanced arguments which were heard in full.

             From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1).Whether the Complainant Saira Banu is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

   4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and                                                                                                                         whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1) Whether the Complainant Saira Banu is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

               From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of the OP No.1 enjoying the gas connection being consumer no. 896 of Indane from the OP, so she is entitled to get service from the OP.

 (2) Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

           Both complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.10000/- ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

 (3) Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?                  

After perusing the complaint petition, documents, affidavit-in-chief and hearing the arguments this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of OP No.1. She used to book gas cylinders on his need and got cylinders after a considerable period as it depicts from the refill receipt. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant did not get cylinder booked on 22.10.2014 after a prolonged period. He put the matter before the OP No.1 who did not solve the problem of the complainant. The complainant served a letter dt. 1.04.2015 and also informed the OP No.2 regarding the irregular supply of gas. But none took effective measure to mitigate the problem of the complainant. The act and attitude of the OP No.1 is not satisfactory. Getting no alternative the complainant sought redress of this Forum.

Getting notice from this Forum OP No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written version and OP No.2 also appeared and filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against him.

 The complainant getting no gas cylinder booked on 22.10.2014 knocked the door of the OP No.1 who in his turn took no measure to solve the problem. She is being a bona fide consumer of OP No.1 suffering a lot as she is not getting gas cylinders at regular course. The OP No.1 created an artificial crisis to snatch money from the customers. The complainant informed the matter to the OP No.2 but he remained silent regarding the matter. He is the right person to take appropriate action against his distributor. After receiving notice from the Forum he turn up before the Forum and filed written version and assailed that the OP No.1 has been appointed under a special scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak, formulated by the ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India where under LPG Distributors are appointed with respect to a cluster of villages for providing LPG cylinders in areas/ villages where LPG penetration is minimal. Since the distributors under RGGLV scheme is appointed in areas with minimal LPG penetration, to make these distributorships economically viable many special conditions have been prescribed for its operations in line with the guidelines of MOPNG.  As per this scheme the consumer is required to carry the empty cylinder to the LPG Distributors place and collect a refilled LPG cylinder and there is no provision for reimbursement carrying charges to the customer in such cases. There is no provision for advance booking of LPG cylinder in case of distributors appointed under RGGLV scheme. In accordance with the complaint petition the complainant alleged that she booked a LPG cylinder which appears to be palpably false in view of the fact there is no provision for advance booking in case of the present opposite party. Nowhere in the complaint petition it is stated that she went to the distributor for LPG refill and she has been denied by the distributor to provide the same. That as per the records available with the present opposite party the complainant has not taken any LPG cylinder from the distributor since 21.09.2014. After perusing the LPG cylinder upliftment history of the complainant it appears that the booking date & delivery date of the LPG cylinder to the complainant is same implying thereby that the date on which she went to the distributor for LPG refill, she has been provided the same without any delay. The distribution of gas is under the control of Oil Corporation and the distributors are bound to follow the norms of delivery of gases throughout the nation. The OP No.1 is under liability to meet the valid demand of his customers.  From the consumer details as supplied by the OP No.2 it appears that complainant booked gas cylinder on 20.03.2014 and delivered on 20.03.2014, booked on 27.04.2014 and delivered on27.04.2014, booked on 27.05.2014 and delivered on27.05.2014, booked on 29.06.2014 and delivered on29.06.2014, booked on 13.08.2014 and delivered  on 13.08.2014 and booked on 21.09.2014 and delivered  on 21.09.2014. So there is no other booking date and thereafter supply by the deliveryman of the distributor. This averment is unchallenged one and contradictory to the averments as depicted in the complaint petition. The complainant suppressed the system of delivery of gas under the scheme in which she was a consumer. It is the settled principle of equity that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

In this case the OP No.1 failed to provide the gas cylinder to this complainant in time for which the complainant getting no alternative took the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. After perusing the case record as well as documents in the record the OP No.1 delayed the supply of gas cylinders but did not deny the supply. OP No.1 in his written version assailed that he is ready to supply the gas cylinders as per availability of cylinders but he is no way deficient in providing gas cylinders. So we are in a considered opinion that mere direction to the OP No.1 &2 is sufficient to normalize the gas supply of the complainant.

  4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

               The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not prove his case beyond any doubt so the opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant for mental pain and agony.

             Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with no other as to cost.

            The OP No.1&2 is directed to normalize the gas supply of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving this order.

             At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party No.1&2  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 30 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

             Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties  in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

    Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President,