DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB  : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 21^st day of June 2023

C.C.369/2017

Complainant

Saritha Krishnan

B.S.N.L staff Quarters,

Gurukulam Road,

Koyilandy,

Kozhikode – 673 305.

Opposite Parties

1. The proprietor

          Shiva Bharat Gas Services,

          29/91, Viyur,

          Kollam – P.O,

          Kozhikode – 673 307.

          (By Adv.Sri.M.P.Radhakrishnan)

2. Sales Officer

Bharat Gas Petroleum Ltd.,

            Kozhikode.

ORDER

By Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN– MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a consumer of the 1^st opposite party with Consumer No.66561956.  The 1^st opposite party is the Gas agency of Bharat Gas Petroleum Ltd. The main reason for the complaint is that the gas cylinder was not distributed to her in time and excess charges were collected by distributing employees.  The 1^st opposite party was contacted against the attitude of the staff.  The stand taken by them was in support of the staff members and she had to face threat from the opposite party.  Then the supply officer of Kerala state civil supplies department was approached and complaint was given against the agency.  Even though the reply was given by the supply officer stating the cylinder would be delivered in time deficiency continued in the service of the 1^st opposite party.  Online payment for booking was done on 12/09/2017 she had to wait upto 09/10/2017 for getting the gas cylinder.  The cylinder was issued only when she contacted and made complaint to the Territory Manager of Bharat Gas at Ernakulam.  The deficiency in service of the opposite parties in delivering the cylinder on time created must difficulty to her and she had to depend on hotel food for a long period and had to take leave from her office. 

3. The deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties caused much financial loss, time loss and she suffered mental strain also.  Hence the complainant prays to give a direction to opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the financial loss, hardship, and mental agony suffered.
4. The 1^st opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version.  The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte. It is stated that the complainant had previously registered for supply of the gas many times and it was supplied promptly in usual routine procedure. He also stated that there was no occasion wherein the supply of the gas was delayed to any of the consumers including the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party admitted that there was some delay, as the complainant moved to the new residence without proper intimation to them.  It is the practice of the 1^st opposite party to entrust the Bill /Receipt with the person supplying the gas to handover to the consumer while making payment.  Therefore averment made by the complainant that gas was supplied without bill is utterly false and hence denied.  The petitioner had previously made complaints against them to the Supply Officer, Civil Supplies Department and Territory Officer, Bharat Gas by making false allegations.  As the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing, the opposite party prays before the commission to dismiss the complaint.

5. The points that arise for determination in this case are:

1.  Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

6. Evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

7. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties advance any arguments in spite of granting ample opportunity.

8. Point No.1 :  The complainant was examined as PW1 who filed proof affidavit in support of the claim.  The main issue is regarding in-ordinate delay of supplying gas cylinders even though booking was done much earlier.  Ext. A3 is the Refill Booking History of the complainant.  The complainant had booked a cylinder on 12/9/2017. Ext.A4 is the copy of complaint given by complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on 3/10/2017.  From Ext.A4 it is clear that the booked cylinder on 12/9/17 is not issued to her even after 21 days.  It is also evident from Ext.A3 that the booked cylinder on 4/12/2016 was delivered only on 24/12/2016 with a delay of 20 days.  Ext.A5 is the copy of letter forwarded by Taluk Supply Officer, Dept. of Civil Supplies, Govt. of Kerala to his immediate higher officer.  The report of the Taluk Supply Officer indicates some amount of lapses in the service of 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A7 is the copy of complaint dated 4/10/2017 addressed to the  Territory Manager, B.P.C.L, Kochi in which actions was sought against the 1^st opposite party.

9. The reply of 1^st opposite party is that the delay in handing over cylinder was due to the non-intimation of shifting of residence by the complainant.  It is true that the complainant had shifted the residence to the BSNL quarters.  Ext.A2 is the allotment letter given to the complainant by the General Manager, Telecom, Calicut, on 13/6/2017.  As per Ext.A3 it can be seen that in the month of December 2016 much before the shifting of residence, a delay of 20 days was there in the delivery of gas cylinder.  So the reason that there was no proper intimation about shifting of residence cannot be accepted as such.

10. More over the shifted residence is well within the premises of 1^st opposite party and falls within his area of business.  Also a consumer for gas cylinder always desires to get it delivered as early as possible.  The evidence of PW2 points out certain deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  In the affidavit filed, the complainant pointed out that a delay of 26 days was there in delivery of cylinder in the month of September 2017.  The cylinder was delivered only on 9/10/2017 even though online booking was done on 12/09/2017.  There is no denial on the part of opposite parties about those dates.  Also no contra evidence is produced by opposite parties to show that her cylinder was delivered earlier than 12/09/2017.  Hence allegation of delay stands proved.

11. Going through all the above evidence in hand, we are of the view that deficiency of service was there on part of opposite parties.  The inordinate delay by itself amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant was put to great inconvenience and hardship due to delayed delivery of the gas cylinder.  She is entitled to be compensated adequately.

12. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- claimed by the complainant seems to be excessive.  The complainant submitted that she had to depend on Hotel food during those period.  But no supporting documents like Hotel bill etc are produced by the complainant.  Also during cross examination, complainant has admitted that there was additional methods adopted by her for cooking.  In order to compensate for the losses, and hardship suffered we find that Rs.5,000/- will be reasonable compensation .

13. Point No.2 :  In the light of the findings on above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

1. C.C.369/2017 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered due to deficiency of service on the part  of opposite parties.
3. The payment shall be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this Order, otherwise the amount will bear 6% interest till actual payment from date of the Order.

Pronounced in Open Commission on this the 21^st day of June 2023.

Date of Filing: 13-10-2017.

                               Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                         PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                 MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 – Copy of complaint give to Minister, Civil Supplies, Govt. of Kerala.

Ext A2 - Allotment letter of BSNL quarters given to the complainant by the General Manager, Telecom, Calicut, on 13/6/2017.

Ext A3 – Refill Booking History of the complainant.

Ext A4 - Copy of complaint given by complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on 3/10/2017. 

Ext A5 - Copy of letter forwarded by Taluk Supply Officer, Koyilandy to the District Supply Officer, Kozhikode.

Ext A6 – Bill of first opposite party given to complainant.

Ext A7 - Copy of complaint dated 4/10/2017 addressed to the Territory Manager, B.P.C.L, Kochi.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Saritha Krishnan (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

Nil.

                                 Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                         PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                 MEMBER

​

                                                                True Copy,

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                       Assistant Registrar.