Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: termite in Mrrajeev Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 18 August, 2016Matching Fragments
(i) Inspection of records, directed by the Commission in paragraph 4 of the order dated 30.10.2014, was allowed after more than four months against the direction of the Commission to allow it in thirty days.
(ii) On the date of the inspection, it was conveyed to him that a large part of the records, that he wanted to see, had been destroyed by termites.
2. Since a satisfactory reply had not been received from the CPIO, a show cause notice was issued to him vide the Commission's letter dated 10.9.2015. Vide a subsequent letter dated 1.2.2016, the CPIO was directed to appear before the Commission, with the relevant records, today. Shri Pawan Sareen, Chief Manager (LPG) was present for the hearing. However, since a show cause notice was issued to the CPIO, he should have been present for the hearing in person. We further note from the records placed before us that Shri Subodh Mahajan, DGM is the CPIO.
5. With regard to the delay in facilitating inspection, alleged by the Appellant, the Respondents stated that the Commission's order dated 30.10.2014 was received by them on 18.11.2014. The order was forwarded to the field officer on 20.11.2014 for urgent action. They received an email dated 29.11.2014 from the field officer, stating that she had had a telephonic conversion with the Appellant for inspection of the records of the Gulaothi Gas Service, but was informed by him that the Respondents needed to send him some documents within twenty days of the order. He wanted that part of the order to be compiled with first before fixing a date for inspection. Subsequently, the field officer again got in touch with the Appellant on phone on December 22, 2014 and sent an email on the same day to the higher authorities to state that the Appellant had informed her that the complete information was still awaited and, therefore, the date of inspection would be determined thereafter. The inspection finally took place on 10.3.2015. The records for the year 2013 were shown, but the records for the years 2000 to 2012 have been destroyed by termite. We drew the attention of the Respondents to the fact that they were informed by the gas agency vide letter dated 12.1.2015 that the records had been destroyed by termite and asked them as to why the inspection was arranged subsequently in spite of the Respondents knowing the above. The Respondents stated that the inspection was arranged to enable the Appellant to see the situation of records for himself. The Respondents further submitted that two officers of the public authority, not belonging to the area of the CPIO, were asked to conduct an enquiry concerning the operations of the gas agency. They checked the information concerning sixty sample customers and no irregularity was found. This enquiry also confirmed that a large part of the records were destroyed by termite. The Respondents further submitted that if the Appellant has in mind any specific customer(s), in whose case irregularities were committed as per his information, he should share the information with them (Respondents) to enable them to conduct an enquiry. They also stated that they have taken action against the gas agency under Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
6. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Shri Trilok Chand Sharma reiterated that the inspection was not facilitated within the timeframe stipulated in the order of the Commission. He submitted that the records that the Appellant wanted to inspect are to be kept permanently, in the showroom, as per the rules and regulations of the public authority. The field officer is required to inspect the same every three months. Therefore, it is not possible that the records not being available or having been destroyed by termite came to the notice of the Respondents only when the Appellant sought an inspection. The representative of the Appellant alleged that a large number of connections of the agency have been cancelled. He also submitted that he has been given Marketing Discipline Guidelines pertaining to 2014 and not 2015. He urged the Commission to inspect the records and prayed for award of suitable compensation to the Appellant.
16. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that as per their guidelines, documents concerning new connections and subscription vouchers have to be retained permanently. They further submitted that an annual appraisal of every agency is carried out and based on the same, a decision is taken regarding the number of inspections that need to be carried out during a year. In their written submissions dated 18.7.2016, the Respondents have stated the following: "As far as the issue of not maintaining the records properly by the distributorship is concerned, there is no provision of taking disciplinary action against the distributor. Reason is that SV (Subscription Voucher) is an agreement between Customer & IOCL, thru Distributor & one copy of SV is provided to Customer at the time of release of new Connection. Hence for any further action related to connection, customer always produces his copy of SV or consumer no. to regernate the record. During the course of one of such inspections done at Gulaothi gas, our team of officers had contacted four sampled customers of each year from 2000 to 2015, who had availed new connections from 2000 to 2015 & collected their feedback, copies of SVs, POI, POA, which was analysed by our Noida Area Office & no deviation was found. As far as the issue of record effected (sic) with termite infection is concerned, it is submitted that the responsibility to maintain the records is of the distributor & Corporation does not exercise any control on its upkeep & Maintenance."