By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of the Indian Oil Corporation and the 1st respondent is the distributor of cooking gas to the complainant. During the year 2006 the complainant has supplied with only one gas cylinder. He has complained to the 1st and 2nd respondents several times. But there was no remedy at all. The gas cylinder booked on 2007 January was not obtained till date. It is deficiency in service and this complaint has filed.
2. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent it is stated as follows:
The complainant is a consumer by No.7506. It is not correct to say that the complainant has been supplied with only one cylinder in the year 2006. The gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant as per the availability and also on the basis of priority. This respondent is ready to do this in future also. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The 2nd respondent has also stated in their version that there is no lapse on his part in supply cooking gas to the petitioner. No request has been received from the complainant in this regard. On receiving the notice he has directed the 1st respondent to solve the problem and accordingly the petitioner has obtained gas from the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has also stated that generally 21 days gap is occurred between supply of LPG cylinder. In future also the petitioner can be supplied with LPG on availability.
4. The respondents 3 to 5 filed counter to the effect that these respondents are unnecessary parties and the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. There is no details of the distribution of supply of the gas cylinders. The allegations against respondent 1 and 2 are to be proved by them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these respondents and pray to dismiss the complaint.
5. The points for consideration are:
1)Is there any deficiency in service by the respondents?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
6. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2 and Exhibit R1
7. The complainant’s case is that he has not obtained the LPG cylinder regularly. He has obtained only one in the year 2006. The contention of the respondents are that the petitioner has been supplied with the gas cylinder as availability and also on the basis of the priority in booking. There is no serious contention on the part of respondents. As per Exhibit R1 there was irregular supply of cylinder. Exhibit P2 shows regular supply to some extent. The 1st respondent agreed in the counter that they are ready to supply the gas cylinder on priority and on availability. The relief sought is distribution of one gas cylinder in each month. Since the distribution depends on the availability we can only direct to provide the gas cylinder on availability. In the circumstances there is no scope for any compensation.
8. In the result complaint is partly allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to supply the gas cylinder on availability. The 1st respondent is further directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within one month.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of March 2009.