BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Friday, the 29th day of January, 2010
CC.No. 60 of 2008
Between:
Ch. Nagender S/o Late Malhari,
Aged about 56 years, R/o H.No. 4-9/40,
Prashanth Nagar, Sangareddy town,
Medak District. ….. Complainant
And
- Uttam Gas Incharge of Vinay Gas, Rajampet,
Sangareddy.
- District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy,
- Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy.
- District Civil Supply Officer, Prashanth Nagar,
Colony, Medak District at Sangareddy.
- Deputy Tahsildar, under the Control of Dist.
Civil Supplies Office, Medak at Sangareddy.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 27.01.2010 in the presence of the complainant in person, Sri. J. Chandraiah, advocate for opposite party No. 1 and Sri. K. Narsing Rao, Government Pleader for opposite parties No. 2 to 5, on hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to issue suitable orders to the opposite parties for supply of gas to the consumers regularly as per rules and regulations and to direct to pay meals amount of Rs.8,250/- to the complainant and to order for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant has gas connection No. 1017. On 13.10.2008 he booked for gas but till the date of filing of the complaint (28.11.2008) he has not received gas inspite of his complaining to opposite parties no. 1 to 5 ; on the other hand they issued gas to others without following the procedure.
The complainant is a chronic patient. He under went several operations to his leg due to which he is unable to stand and walk properly. Complainant is a physically handicapped . Inspite of it he stood in the queue for gas for eight hours for three days but he could not get refilled gas cylinder. His request to deliver gas cylinder by their men at his residence and to install to avoid leakage was paid a deaf year.
The family of the complainant consists of five persons. Due to non supply of gas they were unable to cook and they had their meals at Manjunath Bhavan by incurring Rs.275/- per day for a period of one month, by spending a total amount of Rs.8,250/-. The complainant’s family faced inconvenience, mental torture and worries by attending hotel. The opposite parties No. 1 to 5 are therefore negligent and deficient in service . Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant by filing counters. The counter version of opposite party No. 1 in brief is as follows:
It is true that the complainant has gas connection No. 1017 and he booked for gas on 13.10.2008 but it is not true that opposite party No. 1, without following the terms and conditions for supply of gas, supplied gas to others in the godown without any procedure. It is incorrect to say that the complainant requested the opposite parties to deliver gas at his residence. It is incorrect to say that the complainant had meals to his family members at Manjunath Bhavan by incurring Rs. 275/- per day and spent a total amount of Rs.8,250/- per month. Facing of great inconvenience , mental torture etc., are all incorrect. It is also incorrect that the complainant is physically handicapped. There is neither negligence nor deficiency in service.
During the year 2008 there was short supply of gas to the distributors through out India therefore Vinay gas distributors could not supply gas properly to the consumers and there by there was heavy pendency of supply. On the agitation of the people of Sangareddy opposite parties No. 2 to 5 have suspended vinay gas company distributor and gave in charge to opposite party No. 1 authorizing him to supply gas to the consumers of Sangareddy. By the time of taking charge by the opposite party No. 1 there was heavy requirement of gas loads to supply to Sangareddy town. The efforts of opposite party No. 1 to supply immediately three loads of gas per day for the requirement could not bear any fruit. Meanwhile on the representations of Professionals like advocates, doctors, employees and VIPs the Hon’ble joint secretary directed the opposite party No. 1 to give priority to them. Accordingly opposite party No. 1 sent gas to such persons as per the directions of the joint collector; but local people obstructed for the same.
The complainant is an advocate and a member of Bar Association, Sangareddy. During the months October, November and December 2008 gas cylinders were supplied to all the advocates including the complainant. The complainant, in order to gain easy money, intentionally did not bring pass book at the time of receiving the cylinder. As a matter of fact the complainant received gas cylinder in the month of October after his booking through bar association, Sangareddy as per the direction of opposite party No. 3. The procedure is that the person who receives gas cylinder shall produce pass book and obtain endorsement there in, showing delivery of cylinder. As the advocates pressurized, opposite party No. 1 delivered gas cylinders to all the advocates, including the complainant and the Bar Association maintained a record there for. When the complainant requested to supply two cylinders to him to meet his needs in connection with the marriage of his daughter, on humanitarian grounds, opposite party No. 1 supplied two gas cylinders to the complainant immediately, but the complainant clandestinely did not bring the pass book and obtain endorsement there in.
The complainant resides in Prashanth nagar colony which is at a distance of two kilometers from Manjunath Bhavan from which he has stated to have taken meals to his family members. There are several good hotels in between the house of the complainant and Manjunath Bhavan Hotel, especially near new Bus Stand, Sangareddy. The Hotel receipts produced by the complainant are created. If really the complainant took meals at Manjunath Bhavan for his family for one month he would have obtained receipts for each meal/ on each occasion but he had produced two receipts dated. 25.11.2008. The receipts in this case and the receipts filed in CC. No. 59/2008 were obtained in the same day i.e. 25.11.2008 which itself shows that they are created. Obtaining consolidated receipt itself shows that it is a created document. There is no APGST or CST on monograms and there are no bill numbers. It appears the complainant is in the habit of blackmailing, to get easy money by filing complaints.
Manjunath Bhavan Udipi hotel is opposite to the District court and it is located in the premises belonging to Manohar Gupta, who is complainant in CC No. 59 of 2008. The said Manohar Gupta and proprietor of Manjunath Bhavan Udipi Hotel colluded together and created false receipts and filed the present frivolous complaint. Opposite party No. 1 has been discharging his duties as per directions of opposite parties No. 2 to 4. Supply of gas was badly paralyzed by the time to opposite party No. 1 took charge. Opposite party No. 1 tried his level best to supply gas to all the consumers. There is no negligence nor there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
3. Opposite party No. 4 filed a counter which is adopted under a memo by opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 5. The contents of the said counter in brief are as follows:
It is true that the complainant booked for gas on 23.10.2008 but due to short supply of gas from BPCL Oil Company the incharge agency has received 39 loads in September 2008, 35 in October 2008 and 30 in November 2008 , therefore gas could not be supplied by the company. In order to meet the urgency, gas was supplied to those consumers who were in need, at gas godown, as auto boys intercepted to make door delivery earlier, since the incharge was assumed the charge of Agency. The BPCL was also asked to provide sufficient loads. It is purely the duty of BPCL to supply and install gas at consumer’s residence. As Vinay Agency did not follow the procedure opposite parties No. 2 to 4 issued a show cause notice for the irregularities. As the consumers were facing problems again the dealer ship was restored to original dealer who was placed under suspension for three months. Hence further action in the matter may be dropped.
4. In order to prove the averment, the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 filed a memo to treat the version as evidence affidavit of opposite party No. 1 and also treat it as written arguments. No evidence affidavit is filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 5. Written arguments of complaint is filed. Perused the record.
5. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for a direction to the opposite parties to supply gas to consumers regularly; and for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
Point:
6. The complainant’s case is that on 13.10.2008 he booked for gas but re filled gas cylinder was not supplied to him therefore he filed the present complaint on 28.11.2008. The first relief prayed in the complaint is to issue suitable orders to the opposite parties for supply of gas to the consumers regularly has per rules and regulations. Such general order cannot be passed by this forum. Consumer Fora are established to decide disputes between consumers and the opposite parties against whom allegations are raised, raising a “consumer dispute” but not to pass general orders. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled for the first relief .
Even otherwise, according to opposite parties gas agencies could not supply refilled gas cylinders to the consumers due to short supply of gas during August 2008, which is evident from Ex. B1 and B2 . The said version of the opposite parties is not denied by the complainant. It is the further contention of the opposite parties that due to short supply of gas cylinders to the agencies during August 2008 pendency of bookings piled up. In the subsequent months also. Therefore in order to lessen the inconvenience of the consumers, to the extent possible, gas was directed to be supplied to those who were in need; and further as auto boys intercepted supply of gas at the residences of the consumers, refilled gas cylinders were delivered at the godowns till normalcy was restored. This version of the opposite parties is also not denied by the complainant. The complainant is therefore not entitled to any compensation muchless Rs.50,000/ as claimed in the complaint.
7. Coming to the second relief prayed by the complainant, according to him as there was delay in supply of refilled gas cylinder, he had to secure meals for his family from Manjunath Bhavan Udipi hotel, which is located opposite to District Court building, by incurring Rs. 275/- per day for a period of one month by spending a total amount of Rs. 8250/-. Therefore he prays to direct the opposite parties to pay him the said amount. In support of the said version he has marked Exs. A8 & A9 bills, both dated 25.11.2008. They stand in the name of the complainant. Ex. A8 is for Rs.6,000/- . It shows cost of meals for five members from 25.10.2008 to 25.11.2008 thirty days @ Rs.40/- per meal. Like wise Ex. A9 is for Rs. 2,250/- for tiffin’s during the above period @ Rs/ 15/- per day per head. The contention of the opposite parties is if really the complainant has taken meals for his family members from Manjunath Bhavan Udipi hotel as stated by him, he should have obtained bills for each transaction but not consolidated bills for \one month as Exs. A8 & A9, therefore his version cannot be believed and hence no reliance can be placed on Exs. A8 & A9 to pass any order in favour of the complainant.
8. Even otherwise the complainant’s version that he had meals for his family members from hotel, as meals could not be prepared at his residence for want of gas, cannot be believed because as seen from Ex. A1 xerox copy of consumer pass book, he is holder of two cylinders and normally a full cylinder can cater the needs of a family of five members minimum five to six weeks for cooking food. The date of booking for gas by the complainant is 13.10.2008 and the period of alleged meals from hotel is from 25.10.2008 to 25.11.2008. The second cylinder must have been used certainly during the period for cooking food for the family. It is not the case of the complainant that by 13.10.2008 i.e. by date of booking, one cylinder was already empty and the second cylinder was put to use about a month prior there to.
Moreover, the period mentioned in the bills is 25.10.2008 to 25.11.2008. Infact the said period is thirty one days but not thirty days as mentioned in the bills. Further both the bills contain the name of a person Santhosh. It is purported to be signature of the said person. It is not known in what way the said Santhosh is connected with Manjunath Bhavan Udipi Hotel that is to say whether he is a proprietor, cashier, accountant, manager, supplier or otherwise of the hotel and whether he is competent to issue such bills. The complainant has not even filed evidence affidavit of the person who issued Exs. A8 and A9 to prove the contents.
9. Opposite party No. 1 contended that the version of the complainant that he has taken meals from Manjunath Bhavan Udipi Hotel for his family cannot be believed because his residence is at a distance of about 2 kilometers from the said hotel and there are other equally good hotels very near his residence. This contention is also not denied by the complainant. Therefore from the circumstances reasonable suspicion arises regarding the genuineness of Exs. A8 & A9.
10 The complainant is a regular practioner as advocate in the courts at Sangareddy including this forum. He comes to this forum just like any other normal person. His version that he is physically handicapped etc., cannot be believed. His photograph Ex. A4 and OP chit of government hospital Ex. A5 do not add any merit to his case.
11. Therefore from the circumstances the complainant’s version is not at all believable in any aspect. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The point is answered against the complainant.
12. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 29th day of January, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) The Complainant Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2) The Opposite parties Opposite parties On ______
3) Spare copy
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
