State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.Anandaraj, No.B-1616, Tamil Nadu ... vs 1.Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil ... on 16 April, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE THIRU.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.NO.537/2011
(As against the order in CC.No.305/2009 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2013 M.Anandaraj, No.B-1616, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Velachery, Appellant / Complainant Chennai-600
042. (Inperson)
-vs-
1. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, T.Nagar Division, Teynampet, M/s.P.S.Sivasubramaniam Chennai 600 018. Counsel for 1st Respondent / 1st Opp.party
2. Manager, TUCS Gas Agency, (Alandur), No.120/3, M.K.N. Road, M/s.A.Karthikeyan Alandur, Chennai 600 016. Counsel for 2nd Respondent / 2nd opposite party The Appellant as the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to ensure supply of fuel as and when required after 20 days of the last supply and ensure supply to the spare cylinder to serve its purpose readily and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant / complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.305/2009 dated 15.3.2011.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.3.2013. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant/appellant is the customer of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is the agency and supply cylinder to the customer on behalf of the 1st opposite party. The complainant used to get cylinder from the 1st opposite party only after 15 days and now it is eligible after 20 days from the last supply. On 21.09.2005, the Senior Area Manager, IOC published in the news paper that a customer can book for a refill on the 21st day of the last supply and got supply within two days or some times in 4 or 5 days of booking. But the 1st opposite party insisted the booking for the refill only after 22 days and make to supply as 36 days of the last supply. Hence the complainant written letter to the opposite party on several times, but it is vain.
Hence consumer complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum.
3. The District Forum said to have erroneously dismissed the complaint without considering the complaint and hence the appeal is preferred by the complainant / appellant praying to setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.537/2011 dated 15.3.2011.
4. But the respondents / opposite parties contended that the appellant is the customer of the 1st opposite party and they supplied gas cylinder to the appellant regularly and the refill cylinder will be supplied based on the seniority of booking and number of refill calls pending. From the records of the 1st opposite party it shows that the appellant/complainant received refills cylinder an average of 5 days from the date of booking. Hence, there is no delay to supply of refill to the appellant. Hence, praying to dismiss the appeal with costs.
5. We have carefully considered both sides contentions and materials placed before us in this appeal it is admitted case of both sides that the appellant / complainant is a consumer receiving Indane Gas cylinder supplied from the second opposite party at the intervals of prescribed time and his grievance was that he was not regularly supplied the gas cylinder in time and supply was irregular and thereby praying for ensured gas supply, after 20 days of the last supply and ensures gas cylinder service whenever required by the consumer and for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the deficiency in service and mental agony. On perusal of the district Forums order and upon materials even though the complainant had alleged that he had written various letters during the year 2005 and 2006 and subsequently 2008 and on 15.01.2009 for which the opposite parties contended that they are all time barred as the complaint was filed in the year 2009 only. Further contended that the supply was made regularly to the complainant an average period of 5 days throughout the period of supply except for the one month. Further the restriction of 20 days gap in between one supply and another was recently reduced and they are strictly adhering the same. The District Forum found that the complainant has not proved any lapse or deficiency by the opposite parties and by proving documentary evidence and no details of specific dates relating to the booking of gas cylinder were furnished and supply dates also not mentioned and further his general prayer for to ensure regular supply of gas cylinder and spare cylinder without delay when required by the complainant cannot be granted by the consumer Fora and we are also of the same view that such general prayers cannot be considered by the Consumer Forum unless there is specific allegations regarding the deficiency or negligence in service. In this case such negligence or deficiency was not proved through the materials placed before us. Hence, we are of the view that there are no merits in the appeal which is to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District forum in CC.No.305/2009 dated 15.03.2011.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI ( J ) MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX; YES / NO VL/D/RRJ/ORDERS