West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/45

Manoj Kr mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The proprietor,M/S basundhara Indane Gramin Vitrak - Opp.Party(s)

self

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

The case of the complainant Manaj Kr. Mondal, in brief, is that he deposited Rs. 2550/- to get new connection of gas from O.P No.1 M/s Basundhara Indane Gramin Vitrak, Ahmedpur, Birbhum and O.P No.1 has given his gas book bearing card sl. No. 5730053953 and consumer No. CN4752667 but they have not issued any challan to him regarding payment of Rs. 2550/-.

            It is also the further case of the complainant that on 08.02.2014 he booked a gas but did not get such gas cylinder till date.

            Accordingly, he is facing much inconvenience and inspite of several requests O.P No.1 did not pay any heed.

            During pendency of case Indian Oil Corporation, Divisional Office, City Centre, Durgapur has been made O.P No.2 of this case.

By filing the present case the complainant has prayed for directing to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental harassment and for directing the O.Ps to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation cost.

The O.P No.1 M/s Basundhara Indane Gramin Vitrak has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case and the case is not maintainable.

It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant deposited Rs. 2540/- against his new gas connection, but it is not true that the O.P No.1 did not issue any money receipt to him. The O.P No.1 has issued money bill to the complainant in respect of Rs. 2540/- and refunded Rs. 3/- to him. The complainant intentionally has made such allegations for not getting the money receipt.

It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant never visited their office to take delivery of the gas cylinder. More so, there is no rule of home delivery of cylinder in respect of Gramin Vitarak.

It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that they delivered a gas cylinder to the complainant as per interim order passed by this Forum.

Ultimately, the O.P No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

O.P No.2 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending, inter alia, that the complainant has no locus standi to file this case and the present case is not maintainable.

It is the specific case of the O.P No.2 that they never violated any rules regarding home delivery of cylinder and as such there was no deficiency in service on their behalf.  Lastly, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Manaj Kr. Mondal has been examined himself as P.W.1 and cross examined by way of questionnaires and some documents have been submitted by him.

OPW1 Subhamoy Sen is the proprietor of O.P No.1 M/S Basundhara Indane Gramin Vitark. He filed some document.

On the other hand O.P No.2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant deposited Rs. 2550/- for getting new gas connection and received a cylinder. So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P No.1 has Office at Ahmadpur within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 15000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he deposited Rs. 2550/- to get new connection of gas from O.P No.1 M/s Basundhara Indane Gramin Vitrak, Ahmedpur, Birbhum and O.P No.1 has given his gas book bearing card sl. No. 5730053953 and consumer No. CN4752667 but they have not issued any challan to him regarding payment of Rs. 2550/-.

            On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P No.1 that they have issued money receipt to the complainant in respect of payment of Rs. 2550/-.

            We find that in his written argument para-4 the complainant has admitted that he has received said money receipt after filing of the case.

            Another allegation of the complainant is that on 08.02.2014 he booked a gas but did not get such gas cylinder till date.

            But we find that the complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to show that actually on 08.02.2014 he has booked any gas cylinder. He also did not mention the booking No. of alleged booking. He could not even produced the computerized chart with a view to indicate that he had given a telephone call to the gas agency. He also did not lodge any complaint with the gas agency or to any higher authorities of Indian Oil Gas Company.

            During hearing of the argument Ld. Adv./Agent of the O.P No.1 submitted that without filing any such document the complainant cannot claim that actually he has booked a gas cylinder on 08.02.2014.

            In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in I 2012CPJ 526 National Commission where the complainant had booked replacement of his gas cylinder with the N.D. Gas service on 10.03.2008, but he was not able to get any booking No. The grievance of the complainant is that neither the order for booking of gas was accepted on telephone nor his request was acceded to him when he approached the gas agency in person. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint with Dist. Forum which by its order dated 04.05.10 dismissed the complaint. The Dist. Forum observed that the complainant could not provide proof of his booking the gas with the O.P / gas agency on 10.03.2008.

            The complainant had preferred an Appeal before Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission pleased to dismiss the Appeal holding that the complainant could not even produce computerized telephone chart with a view to indicate that he had given a telephone call to gas agency. There was no mischief or malafide on the part of the gas agency proved.

            Ultimately, revision application preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission.

            More so, we find that the complainant in his reply to questionnaires admitted that there is no rule of home delivery of cylinder in respect of Gramin Vitrak.

            So, considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the O.P No.1 has not issued any money receipt to him regarding his deposit and inspite of gas booking on 08.02.2014 O.P No.1 has not supplied gas cylinder to him.

We find that there is no specific allegation against the O.P No.2 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Ultimately we find that both the points are liable to be decided against the complainant. Accordingly the case fails.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 45/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.