CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.610 OF 2008 Date of filing : 25/04/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.333/2007 Date of order : 04/03/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SOLAPUR

@ MISC.APPLICATION NOs.889 & 890/2008



Mr.Pravin Tulsiram Goyal

Manager-Swami Samarth Gas Agency

83/6, Bhavani peth, Solapur ………..Appellant/org.O.P.no.1

v/s.

1. Mr.Haridas Baburao Jogdankar

R/o.1034, North Kasba, Masare Galli

Solapur ………Respondent/org.complainant

2. Territory Manager

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Chincholikathi, At post Savleshwar

Taluka Mohol, District Solapur ……..Respondent/org.O.P.no.2

Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present : Mr.P.G.Sarda-Advocate for the appellant

None for the Respondent.

O R A L O R D E R



Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.333/2007, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed original O.P.no.1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- for the mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost, original O.P.no.1 has filed this appeal challenging the said award. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

2. Complainant had filed consumer complaint against Manager Swami Samarth Gas Agency and also impleaded Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) as O.P.no.2. According to complainant, he is having consumer connection no.19383. On 21/4/2007 Delivery man of O.P.no.1 Mr.Vijay Anche came to his house for giving refill Gas cylinder. But after giving gas cylinder, he mentioned on the gas card that refill cylinder has been given and took away the gas card to his shop and did not return the gas card till filing of the complaint. Complainant went to the shop of O.P.no.1 time and again and demanded back the gas card. Evasive replies were given by the gas agency. Therefore alleging deficiency in service with the Gas agency, complainant filed consumer complaint with a prayer that O.P.no.1 should be directed to return the gas card to the complainant. He also claimed Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and also prayed for cost.

3. O.P.no.1 denied the complaint by filing written statement. It pleaded that O.P.no.1 was gas dealer for O.P.no.2 company for 21 years at Solapur and while giving new connection, company O.P.no.2 was issuing Blue colour card to the consumers through dealer. On the said Blue colour card, consumer mentioned the receipt of cylinder from the delivery man of O.P.no.1. The Blue colour card is required to be retained by the consumer himself. O.P.no.1 admitted that on 15/4/2003, complainant was given gas connection along with the blue colour card. It also admitted that on 21/4/2007, gas cylinder was given to the complainant. He had not made complaint about delivery man having taken away the blue colour card till 30/5/2007, when he made complaint to the Collector Solapur that employee of O.P.no.1 Gas agency had lost and misappropriated gas card. O.P.no.1 made an enquiry with Shri Anche, who told that after giving gas cylinder and after making necessary entry in the gas card, he had returned gas card to the family members of the complainant, but complainant had falsely made complaint to the Collector. O.P.no.1 pleaded that he had directed complainant to lodge report with police station and then approach him with an affidavit, so that replacement or duplicate gas card could be issued, but complainant did not approach him with the affidavit and police report and therefore, he has not issued duplicate card.

4. O.P.no.2 filed written statement and admitted that complainant was a consumer and he was registered with O.P.no.1 dealer. It admitted that while issuing gas connection, blue card is given to the consumers and delivery man of O.P.no.1 makes an entry on the said card, which is retained by consumer at his house. It pleaded that without card consumers are not issued cylinder. So it was the duty of the complainant to keep that gas card in proper custody and he was told to make certain compliance before issuing duplicate gas card, but he had not made compliance and therefore he was not issued duplicate gas card.

5. On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below held O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service and directed issuance of duplicate gas card and restoration of gas cylinder supply to the complainant and also awarded damages of Rs.2000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. Aggrieved thereby M/s.Swami Samarth Gas agency/O.P.no.1 has filed this appeal.

6. While filing the appeal there is delay of 15 days. Delay is of few days and it can be condoned on the basis of affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application. Hence we are inclined to allow misc. application no.889/2008 for condonation of delay.

7. We heard submissions of Mr.P.G.Sarda-Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent.

8. We perused the impugned judgement and award. We are finding that the delivery man of appellant Gas agency under some pretext took gas card with him and did not return it at all. Hence original complainant had approached Gas dealer. He had approached Collector, Solapur. He had approached O.P.no.2-BPCL, but none of them ventilated his grievance and therefore, he filed consumer complaint and prayed that gas card should be given back to him and he should be given restoration of gas supply by O.P.nos.1&2. Since Forum below was satisfied that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P.nos.1&2, it imposed minor compensation of Rs.2000/- on O.Ps and also directed them to pay Rs.1000/- as cost.

9. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, we are finding that the O.P.no.1-appellant was guilty of deficiency in service. No person will approach the concerned authorities, if he had misplaced the gas card on his own. Gas card was taken away by appellant’s delivery man and it was never returned to him and since he was not possessing gas card, he was denied refill gas cylinder by appellant as well as BPCL Company. The consumer cannot be taken to task in this fashion simply because he was not possessing gas card, which was fraudulently taken away by the delivery man of the appellant himself.

10. In the circumstances, award passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper and there appears to be no merits in the appeal filed by M/s.Swami Samarth Gas Agency. Hence we pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

2. Appeal stands summarily dismissed.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Misc. application for stay stands disposed of.

5. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member