Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/364

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s H.P.Gas - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:364 dated 25.07.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 30.08.2022. 

 

Gurcharan Singh son of Sh. Sardari Lal, Resident of H. No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

•  

1. M/s. H.P. Gas, Village Dhaha, Mandialan, P.O. Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
2. M/s. Jay Kay Gas Company, Model Town, Link Road, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurcharan Singh in person.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         None.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nut shell, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the OPs vide A/E No.550030. OP2 is a distributor of OP1. The complainant booked a cylinder vide booking order No.561196 dated 25.04.2019. OP2 generated cash memo No.1143825 dated 25.04.2019 for Rs.729.50 and confirmed the booking on 25.04.2019 itself vide authentication code 2210 on the mobile of the complainant which was duly registered with the OPs. The complainant waited for the delivery of the cylinder but the same was not delivered till 01.05.2019. Thereafter, due to increase of rates of gas cylinder on 01.05.2019 onwards, OP2 cancelled the cash memo of Rs.729.50 and issued a fresh cash memo No.1144955 dated 01.05.2019 for Rs.735.50  at the enhanced rate. In this manner, OP2 cancelled the original cash memo of Rs.729.50 illegally. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6/- charged in excess from the complainant by cancelling the original memo and further the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of OP1, it has been pleaded that in fact it is the regional office of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and it does not provide gas cylinder to the individuals directly. It has also been pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP1. Therefore, the complaint as against OP1 is not maintainable. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to OP2, the booking process of cylinder is online and through  IVRS. The complainant is having a consumer  No.550030. The complainant booked the refilled cylinder on 25.04.2019. Cash memo No.1143825 was generated against the booking. The cash memo generated is in fact not the cash receipt and it becomes the cash memo only when the refilled cylinder is delivered to the customer who signs the same after delivery of the refill. According to OP1, the delivery man of OP2 went to the house of the complainant but the house was locked on 25.04.2019. The delivery man waited for 5-10 minutes outside the house of the complainant but nobody came out to take the delivery as a result, the delivery man reported on back of the cash memo ‘House was locked’. Thereafter, on 30.04.2019, the delivery man went to the house of the complainant and tried to deliver the refilled cylinder but again the house was found to be locked and nobody was found present to take the delivery. As a result, the cylinder could not be delivered. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP2. OP2 has further pleaded that as per the guidelines of HPCL any cash memo which remained undelivered on the last date of the month is automatically cancelled and fresh memo with revised rate is generated on the first of the subsequent month. In case there is no revision of rate then the memo generated is not cancelled and the same is used for the delivery of the refilled cylinders. The rates are revised by all three petroleum companies in India on monthly basis. Since the delivery man failed to deliver the cylinder on 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019 and due to non-availability of the complainant at his house, the cash memo No.1143825 was automatically cancelled and due to revised prices a fresh memo was generated. Thus, there has been no overcharging of Rs.6/- by the OPs. In fact, the rates were revised by HPCL on 01.05.2019. The subsidy was credited into bank account of the complainant on 08.05.2019. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant suffered statement that the evidence and documents attached with the complaint be read as evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs did not formally lead any evidence but submitted affidavit and evidence in support of their respective written statements.

6.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of OP2 since 05.05.2022. We have, however, heard the complainant and counsel for OP1 and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                The grievance of the complainant is that he booked a refilled cylinder on 25.04.2019 online against which cash memo of Rs.729.50 was generated but the cylinder was not delivery till 30.04.2019 and on 01.05.2019, OP2 generated a new cash memo No.1144955 dated 01.05.2019 for Rs.735.50 and also delivered the cylinder on 01.05.2019 itself at the enhanced rates causing a loss of Rs.6/- to the complainant. In this regard, the case of OP2 as stated in the written statement is that after the complainant booked the refilled cylinder on 25.04.2019 the delivery man of OP2 went to the house of the complainant on 25.04.2019 and then again on 30.04.2019, but on both the  occasions, there was nobody available in the house of the complainant to receive the cylinder with the result that the same could not be delivered and, thereafter, from 01.05.2019 onwards the rates were revised and a fresh memo was generated and the cylinder was delivered to the complainant on 01.05.2019. In this regard, OP2 has attached with the written statement, a copy of the memo on the back of which it is reported that the house was locked on 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. However, the delivery man has not appended his signatures nor any affidavit of the concerned delivery man has been attached with the written statement to prove that he visited the house of the complainant on 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it cannot be said that OP2 tried to deliver the refilled cylinder on 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. Therefore, OP2 has not justified in generating a fresh cash memo of Rs.735.50 causing the loss of Rs.6/- to the complainant. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP2 is made to refund Rs.6/- along with composite cost and compensation of Rs.700/- to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP2 to refund Rs.6/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. However, the complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                           Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.                 CC/19/364 

Present:       Complainant Sh. Gurcharan Singh in person.

                   Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for OP1.

                   None for OP2.

 

                   None turned up for OP2 today also. None has been appearing on behalf of OP2 since 05.05.2022.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP2 to refund Rs.6/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. However, the complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.