State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Bankura Gas Distributors vs Dhirendra Nath Mallick on 7 December, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1221/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/09/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/122/2013 of District Bankura) 1. M/s. Bankura Gas Distributors Bhairabstan, Bankura, P.O. & P.S. - Bankura, Dist. - Bankura. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dhirendra Nath Mallick S/o Late Kedarnath Mallick, House of Mausumi Pandey, Christan Danga, Nutanchati, Bankura, P.O. & P.S. - Bankura, Dist. - Bankura. 2. Salt Lake Gas Agency IA - 264, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 097. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. S. K. Das , Advocate For the Respondent: ORDER Date : 07/12/2015 DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Being highly aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.9.2014 in CC No. 122/2013, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (in short, District Forum), the OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case against the OP No.1.
Case of the Complainant is that he was an Asstt. Commandant, J.A.O., CISF and retired from service on 31.3.2013 and used to reside permanently at Bankura town. He has a domestic Indane gas connection, bearing consumer no. 7500000065067278 (11107), which is running for about 24 years, and he used to transfer the same in different places for about 7/8 times without any objection. On 07.8.2013, he applied before the OP No. 2 transfer his said gas connection and was given Termination Voucher on the same date. He handed over the said Termination Voucher to the OP No. 1 on 09.8.2013, but due to short name written in his said Termination Voucher, the OP No 1 told him to bring a correction of his name, otherwise the OP No. 1 will not give him any Gas connection. Accordingly, he again visited the OP No. 2 on 12.8.2013 and also met the Manager, IOCL, who advised him to swear an affidavit before the Notary Public or Court regarding his name. Thereafter, he made such affidavit and produced the same to the OP No. 1 along with other documents, which was disallowed by the said OP. He then went to the Durgapur Office of the IOCL and met the Area Manager, who advised him to go to the OP No. 1 and to tell the said OP to talk with him, which he did. Lastly, with disgust and having suffered mental pain and agony for the act and conduct of the OP No. 1, he sent a lawyer notice to the OP No. 1, but without any reply. Therefore, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP No. 1 is full of denial of the allegations levelled by the Complainant against it, praying for rejection of the petition.
It is to considered if the impugned order is suffering from any kind of anomaly, calling for an intervention by this appellate forum, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the name of the Complainant was recorded as D.N.Malalick in place of D.N.Mallick, which caused the malady, which is apparent in the Termination Voucher issued by the OP No. 2, and the same is not executable. Further, IOCL has not been made a party in the case. The Appellant / OP No.1 bonafidely has shown the mistake to the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant. Furthermore, no privity of contract has at all been made or created between the parties and the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant is only perspective buyer but not a consumer of the Appellant / OP No. 1. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC).
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that initially on 01.9.1989, the Gas connection has been taken in Andhra Pradesh, where the Complainant used to work in the CISF and thereafter it has been transferred again and again on his transfer to different places, and not a single problem has arisen anywhere. Every formalities as called for by the OP No. 1 have been done. Still, the OP No. 1 is nonchalant and adamant not to provide him with the gas connection. The OP No. 2 has been introduced later on as an additional party. For non-inclusion of the IOCL, the case of the Complainant does not suffer, because it has no concern with the present dispute. He has been suffering for long for the harassment by the OP No. 1. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 4024/2013, in between Savita Garg Vs The Director, National Heart Institute, and a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in C.O. 1247/2015, in the case of M/s. Sree Krishna Welding Works Vs Amit Kumar Chamaria and Anr.
On a consideration of the whole spectrum of the case, it is amply clear that the impugned order is a very innocuous one, against which usually no appeal should have been preferred, but this appeal has been preferred to prolong the misery of the Complainant. All the things have been done, still the OP No. 1 continued with the refusal to give gas connection and to extend cooperation to a retired CISF person, who has served the nation for long. Thus, the misconceived and frivolous appeal is rejected on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs.5, 000/-. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
[HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER