State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre vs Sri Bidyut Kumar Mondal &Others; on 29 June, 2009
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/11 DATE OF FILING : 13.01.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 29.06.2009 APPELLANTS M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre P.O. & P.S. Arambagh Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal. RESPONDENTS 1. Sri Bidyut Kumar Mondal Vill. & P.O. Champadanga P.S. Tarakeswar Dist. Hooghly. 2. M/s. Ganapati Gas Service Gourhati More, P.O. & P.S. Arambag, Hooghly, West Bengal. 3. The Senior Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Indian Oil Bhavan 2, Gariahat Road (South) Kolkata-700 068. PROFORMA RESPONDENT 4. The D.G.P., Hindusthan Petroleum Co. Ltd. Industry House, 7th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. T.K.Dutta, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. D.Das, Ld. Advocate (Res.1) Mr. R.R.Gupta, Ld. Advocate (Res.3) Mr. A.K.Ghosh, Ld. Advocate(Res.4) : O R D E R :
MR.
P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER This Appeal was heard analogously with Appeal Case No. FA/09/58 since both the Appeals arose out of the same judgement dt. 12.12.08 passed by the Hooghly District Consumer Forum in CDF Case No. 02 of 2007 and this judgement will govern both the Appeals.
The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that he was a Consumer of LPG gas connection under number GG 0423 dt. 31.12.90 where he was having periodical LPG gas service from M/s. Ganapati Gas Service at Arambagh functioning under authority of Respondent No.3 namely, Indian Oil Corporation. His residence being quite at a distance from the aforesaid dealers service station he used to have its service through a delivery person, which delivery of LPG gas stopped from August, 2005 when it was learnt that without any prior intimation to him M/s. Ganapati Gas Service, vide T.T.V. No. 10018 dt. 22.4.03, transferred his consumership to M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre functioning under authority of Respondent No. 4 namely, Hindusthan Petroleum Co. Ltd. On stoppage of supply from Respondent No. 2 and after hearing of the given transfer he went to M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre, who told the complainant that the given service connection to him could not be considered for lapse of time and the complainants effort to resolve the problem though liaison with IOC and HP functionaries did not yield result. Thus, the complaint.
All the Ops filed written version when IOC, the OP No. 1, denied responsibility because of negligence on part of the transferred consumer as he did not pursue his transfer and perform his part of duties in time. The OP No. 2 namely M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum, asserted that the complainant was never a consumer under them and, therefore, he had no case so far as HP was concerned. The OP No. 3 namely M/s. Ganapati Gas Service, stated inter alia that it had complied with all the directions of its principal namely, IOC (Respondent No. 3) within time and had transferred the documents and records to OP No. 4 namely, M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre and hence, it had no liability towards the alleged deficiency of service on its part. The OP No. 4 namely M/s.
Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre stated that the complainant was not a Consumer under its agency and as such, it had no obligation to render service to him. It was also submitted that the complainant having failed to take action in proper time the complainant had no case.
The Ld. Forum after hearing respective sides ordered as follows :-
That the instant complaint petition u/s 12 of C.P.Act be and the same is allowed on contest against all Ops without costs.
The OP 4 i.e. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Service is directed to regularize the consumership of the complainant who will be allowed to comply with the rules and regulations of such transfers if any by all concerned Ops.
The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost from each of OP 1, OP 2 and OP 4.
OP 3, i.e. Ganapati Gas Service will however pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant.
The process of regularization of the consumership of the complainant at the end of OP 4 should be completed and all above payments should be made within 30 days from date of order by the Ops. In default an interest @ 9% per annum shall be levied upon the above amount and to be borne by the respective Ops from the date of default till full recovery.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement of the Ld. District Forum M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre, the OP No. 4 in the Forum below, filed this Appeal stating inter alia that the Respondent No. 1 (Complainant in the Forum) not having been incorporated as a Consumer within stipulated period for transfer of consumership as determined by its principal namely, Hindusthan Petroleum (OP no. 2/Respondent No. 4), the consumers prayer could not be accommodated.
Stating that the given transfer of consumership was to take place under policy guidelines of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, where the transfer was to be effected and completed by 24.4.03, it was stated that the complainant/Respondent No. 1 never contacted the Appellant on any time before or immediately after and admittedly the complainant went on having continued supply of gas service from M/s. Ganapati Gas Service till July, 2005 and thus the Appellant in such case had no fault as alleged. It was also stated that since the complainant did not deposit the cylinder and relevant other requisites before August, 2005, fact established, and the principal namely HPC also did not issue any information towards regularisation of given delayed transfer proposition, the Appellant could not by itself take action accommodating the complainant. Stating further that the Ld. Forum below passed its judgement and order ignoring the facts and law the Appellant accordingly prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order and prayed for passing of further orders deemed appropriate.
Another Appeal (FA/09/58) was filed on the same judgement and order by Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation (OP No. 1 in the Forum), where it was stated inter alia that the Ld. Forum below failed to consider that since 24.4.03 it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that the consumership was already transferred to HP dealer namely M/s. Ramkrishna Sarada Gas Centre, when the complainant chose not to take any action on his part towards incorporating him under the changed dealer. Stressing that the complaint was barred by law of limitation when the same was filed four years after 24.4.03, i.e. the date of transfer, and that the complaint suffered from mis-joinder of parties, it was argued that the impugned judgement and order was bad, erroneous and improper both in law and in fact and accordingly, the same should be set aside against the Appellant.
The Respondent No. 1 namely Sri Bidyut Kr. Mondal, the complainant in the Forum, entered appearance and filed his objection reiterating the fact of the case and supporting findings in the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below. Respondent No. 4, M/s.
Hindusthan Petroleum Co. Ltd., appears through its Ld. Advocate, who advanced his argument in tune with that of the Appellant. The matter was heard from respective sides with filing of written argument as well.
DISCUSSION :-
A. We have carefully gone through the fact of the case where the unfortunate complainant dwelling at a distance from the LPG gas dealers place of business used to have gas service for a long period through delivery-van service. Subsequent to a policy decision at a superior level the complainant/Respondent 1s gas connection was sought to be transferred from the existing dealer of IOC to a new dealer of HP, the OP No.
4. But there was no evidence that the same was properly intimated or brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant or for that matter, he was asked to comply with necessary formalities for such purpose, nor was there any proof or evidence or even any intimation that either the existing dealer or the changed dealer did take any initiative to intimate the consumer towards any duty or requirement or that they themselves performed the same. As a result, while the existing dealer transferred the complainants consumer records to the new dealer, the complainant had no knowledge thereof and did continue to have his service from the previous dealer and by the time the service was stopped from the previous dealer, he started running helter-skelter including to the new dealer and to the authorities of both IOC and HP when all his endeavour of enlisting supply from either end failed.
B. The Ld. Forum below, we find, had gone deep into the matrix of the fact of the case and analysed the respective roles very critically detailing each ones activities and fault with reference to prevalent rules and laws and came to its conclusion strictly in terms of law finding deficiency of service on part of the Ops and quantified compensation which is deemed very fair and reasonable. We find no good reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgement and order so passed by the Ld. Forum below which is deemed perfectly in order and wholly equitable. As a matter of fact, on the continued suffering of the Complainant/Respondent we find that both the Appeals were filed without proper and adequate reason and are so deemed as merely vexatious heightening and lengthening the complainant/Respondents daily woes and, therefore, both the Appeals are liable to be dismissed on contest with cost.
O R D E R :-
The Appeals (FA/09/11 and FA/09/58) are dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid to the Respondent No. 1 by each of the Appellants of both the Appeals. The Appellants of both the Appeals shall ensure compliance of the directions of the Forum below as stipulated in the impugned judgement and also pay the above cost within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this judgement and order, failing which each of them shall pay cost of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) per day to the Respondent No. 1 for the period of default.
MEMBER MEMBER