3DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of April 2023
Filed on: 15/12/2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C No. 820/2015
COMPLAINANT
C.V.Kurian, S/o.Paili Varkke, chirappattu Veedu, 3/357, Chembukukku, P.T.R.R.A-113, Thrikkakara P.O., Kochi-682 021
(By Adv.R.Raja Raja Varma, Gourinandanam, VRRA-5, Vayanasala Road, Chithrapuzha, Tripunithura, Ernakulam-682 309)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panampilly Nagar, Panampilly Avenue, Kochi-682 036.
(o.p1 rep. by Adv.C.S.Dias K, Bindu B.N, Dias Law Associates, Market Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 035)
- Pooja Gas Agencies, 766-B, Subaida Building, Edappally Pookkattupady Road, Unichira, Thrikkakara P.O., Kochi-682 021
(2nd op rep. T.J.Lakshmanan, Penta Queen Flats, Padivattom, Kochi-682 024)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant stating that he is a consumer of the 1st opposite party - IOC as per consumer No. 173564. The LPG cylinder of IOC is supplied to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party who is the distributer of the 1st opposite party. On 19.09.2015 the complainant noticed that the gas supplied by them was completely exhausted and informed the matter to the opposite party. When the officials of the opposite party inspected the cylinder and informed the complainant that it is not a fault of the gas stove and gas is exhausted due to the reason that LPG is not coming out from the gas cylinder. Accordingly, the complainant made attempts to get in touch with the 2nd opposite party for 32 times on different occasions but nobody attended the call and there was no response from the side of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant took up the matter with the 1st opposite party and the person deputed by the 1st opposite party informed the complainant after inspection that the gas in cylinder was being exhausted completely.
The complainant states that the cylinder supplied to the complainant is 18.540 kg and the weight of the empty cylinder is 16 kg and the weight after filling with gas is 30.200 kg. The facts being so, the complainant raised the allegation that the quantity of gas used by him only 11.66 kg as the empty cylinder supplied to the complainant is 18.540 kg. The complainant further states that the cylinder received by the complainant was of lesser volume of 2.500 kg of gas. The complainant further alleges that these types of instances have been earlier detected and the complainant had believed that the opposite party company Indian Oil Corporation and agency is involving in this type of activities. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking for obtaining compensation and reliefs from the opposite parties for the loss sustained to him.
2) Notices
Notices were sent to the opposite parties by the Commission and the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the 1st opposite party
The 1st opposite party stated that the technician found the LPG cylinder at the complainant’s premises as completely used and empty. The imputation that the L.PG cylinder had only a lesser volume of about 2.500 kg thannormal standard volume of LPG cylinder is incorrect and denied. LPG is filled into cylinders by modern and innovative machineries in the most professional and scientific manner by volumetric system. Each LPG cylinder is subjected to stringent quality control checks as per the norms and guidelines of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, at the Bottling Plant of the opposite party. Each LPG cylinder is weighed and only thereafter is transported to the distributor. The distributor is also legally obliged to weigh each cylinder before delivery. Therefore, the imputation that the complainant was constantly supplied with LPG refills with lesser volume of LPG in the cylinders delivered to the complainant is wrong, and incorrect.
The opposite party stated that a LPG cylinder can get over than the normal expected periods of usage of each customer due to various reasons and factors, such as excessive usage for a particular period, leakage due to improper use of the LPG stove, improperly connecting the regulator the cylinder, forgetting to switch off the stove etc. Circumstances being so, it cannot be proved or established by the complainant that the cylinder was not filled with the standard volume of LPG by producing an empty gas cylinder. Further the opposite party stated that the complainant cannot claim that the cylinder supplied by the opposite party was of lesser volume of LPG.
4) Version of the 2nd opposite party
The allegation raised by the complainant against the 2nd opposite party that he had contacted the 2nd opposite party for about 32 times with his grievances, but there is no reliable evidence adduced by the complainant in this regard. The 2nd opposite party in their version stated that they are only delivering the cylinder supplied by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party filling the cylinder and the 2nd opposite party is not directly involving this process. The 2nd opposite party also denied all other allegations and stated that they are not entitled to pay any compensation to the complainant.
5) Evidences
The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A7 documents which are marked.
Exbt.A1 goes to show that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as per consumer No.173564. Exbt.A2 shows that the complainant had taken delivery of LPG cylinder from the 2nd opposite party on 18.09.2015 on payment of cost of Rs.578/-. Exbt.A3 is the letter sent by the complainant to the Controller of Legal Metrology. Exbt.A4 is a copy of local daily. Exbt.A5 is an application filed by the complainant to the legal metrology on 30.07.2018. Exbt.A7 is also a letter received by the complainant from Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology.
No document is produced by the opposite parties. Deposition of DW1 recorded and marked from the side of the opposite parties. The Expert Commission report marked as C1 and the report of the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology marked as C2.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
Point No. (i)
Ongoing through the evidences produced from either side and on a thorough verification of documents and reports regarding the case it is seen that the complainant had taken delivery of LPG cylinder from the 2nd opposite party supplied by the 1st opposite party on 19.09.2015 and the complainant lodged a complaint before the 1st opposite party and they have deputed their technician to verify the LPG cylinder. Subsequently, the Commission appointed a Commissioner and the Commissioner after identifying and weighing the gas cylinder with the machine provided by the complainant was found that, the weight of the gas cylinder as 16.0 kg. It is also reported by the Commissioner that on shaking the cylinder it could identify that something in the form of a liquid is in the cylinder. The Commissioner also reported that he could not smell any gas and therefore he could not ascertain that the liquid in the cylinder is liquid petroleum gas or something else. Eventhough match sticks were lighted and brought near to the cylinder valve no flame was seen and therefore the Commissioner is of the view that liquid inside the cylinder is not LPG. In the report of the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology it is stated that LPG cylinder bearing serial No.6409375 is weighed using standard digital balance on 25.07.2018 and found that it is 18.57 kg in weight. The complainant had not at all mentioned anywhere in the complaint the serial number of the cylinder and has only mentioned the year, number and date of supply of gas cylinder which is 2000039562and the date is 19.09.2015. Further the complainant has not stated that weighed the cylinder soon on getting from the 2nd opposite party, but had only weighed it when seen exhausted and found that weight of which is 18.54 as is recorded on the cylinder. The weight of the empty cylinder is denoted as 16 kg and weight of the cylinder after filling is 30.200 kg. The complainant states that the quantity of usable LPG is 14.200 kg. The complainant further states that the weight of the cylinder with the complainant seems to be 18.54 kg. The date was not mentioned in the complaint. If the date is taken to be as the date of filing of the complaint it can be seen that the weight of the empty cylinder on 15.12.2015 is 18.54 kg and that on 18.11.2016 when the Advocate Commissioner weighed the cylinder it is 16.0kg (by using weighing machine provided by the complainant) and weight of the cylinder found on 25.07.2018 by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology as per his report is 18.574 kg.
From the above, it can be seen that
(1) the weight of the cylinder containing L.P.G is 30.200 kgs (Gross weight)
(2) Net weight of the contents = 14.200 kg. (As noted on the cylinder)
Hence the weight of empty cylinder = 16 kgs
Whereas in the case of the complainant, when the details assessed by the Legal Metrology Department is taken into consideration and calculating the quantity and volume of L.P.G the following be the result.
- Weight of the cylinder (gross) – 30.200kgs
- Weight of empty cylinder = 18.570 (As per th report of the Legal
-
- Therefore the weight of the L.P.G. = 11.630
The complainant ought to have receive 14.200 kgs of L.P.G.gas, but had received only 11.630 kg (ie., 14 kg 200 gm – 11 kg 630 gm).Thus the opposite party 1 had short supplied 2.370 kg of L.P.G to the complainant in a single cylinder.This cannot be viewed and reckoned as incidental and rare, since the 1st opposite party is seen fined by the Legal Metrology for short supply/detection of shortage to a tune of Rs.750000/- on 22.02.2017 as per Exbt.A7 series and the 1st opposite party alone is seen responsible for the lapses since 2nd opposite party is only a distributor who is receiving the L.P.G cylinders being supplied by the 1st opposite party and distributing to the customers.Moreover, there is no allegation framed in the complaint to the effect that the lid of the L.P.G cylinders were seen opened or the seal was broken when it was taken delivery from the side of the 2nd opposite party.Hence the 2nd opposite party is exonerated from the charges and the 1st opposite party is held responsible for the charges and therefore the following orders are issued.
O R D E R
- In the absence of evidences to prove and proceed on way of class action, since being affected to a larger group the Commission limited the extend of exploitation only into the case of the complainant and that too only to the alleged supply of L.P.G cylinder dated 18.09.2015, directs the 1st opposite party to pay an amount of Indian Rupees equal to that of the cost of 2 kg 3.70 gm existing as on date of order along with interest @ 9.5% from 18.09.2015, till the date of realization.
- An amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the 1st opposite party to the complainant as compensation.
- Cost of proceedings of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
All the amounts shall be paid by the 1st opposite party to the complainant within 30 days from te date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount ordered (1) and (2) above shall attract interest @ 9.5% till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 29th day of April 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1 : original domestic gas customer card.
Exbt.A2 : original refill voucher
ExbtA3 : copy of letter from legal metrology department sent to the
complainant dated 30.01.2017.
Exbt.A4 : paper cutting
Exbt.A5 :: copy of letter sent by the complainant to the PUBLIC INFORMATION Officer dated 30.07.2018.
Exbt.A6 :; copy of reply Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology to the complainant dated 03.08.2018.
Exbt.A7 series : copy of documents requested by the complainant under the RTI Act.
Opposite party’s Evidence Nil
Depositions :
PW1 : C.V.Kurian
DW1 : Nashin M.M0
C1 : Commission report
C2 : Report from Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology
Exbt.B1 ::
C.C. No.420/2019
Order dated 28.03.2023
