DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.80 of 28-02-2013
Decided on 28-06-2013
Naveen Kumar aged about 32 years S/o Sunder Lal R/o House No.17606, Ghnaiya Nagar, St.No.2, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, General Manager IO Ltd., Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
2.The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., India Oil Bhawan, Plot No.3A, Sector 19A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.(Deleted)
3.The Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Model Town, Phase-II, Bathinda.(Deleted)
4.Mann Gas Service (Indane Gas Distributors), North Estate Road, Near Dr.Narang, 100 Ft. Road, Bathinda, through its proprietor/partner.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Vikas Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Navdeep Singh Jeeda, counsel for opposite party No.4.
Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 deleted.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that he is holding the LPG connection bearing No.33154 from the opposite party No.4, the distributor of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. As per the scheme of the government the complainant had to get 3 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013 and thereafter he had to get the LPG refills on non-subsidized rates. On 17.1.2013, the government of India ordered the Oil Companies to give 9 LPG subsidized refills in one year and further ordered to give 5 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013 and the rate of the non subsidized refills has been raised to Rs.46.50 over and above already charged. The above orders have been published in the newspapers dated 18th January, 2013 and the orders were made effective from the midnight of 17th and 18th January. The complainant got refill from the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 and it charged Rs.997.50 against the memo No.9736 dated 19.1.2013 from him as price of the 4th LPG refill, whereas the opposite party No.4 was bound to supply the LPG refill at subsidized rate as it was 4th LPG refill of the complainant. The complainant raised the objection against charging of the excess amount and the opposite party No.4 refused to give the LPG refill at subsidized rate on the pretext that it has not received any letter from the company but at the same time it charged the increased rate of non subsidized refill amounting to Rs.46.50 in excess than the earlier rate of non subsidized LPG refill, which was also raised through the same news and made applicable from the midnight of 17.1.2013. The complainant requested the opposite party No.4 to provide the subsidized LPG refill but to no effect rather it supplied the non subsidized LPG refill to him and charged Rs.46.50 in excess than the earlier rate of non subsidized refill of the LPG thereby causing the monetary loss to him. The complainant has also got issued the legal notice dated 24.1.2013 to the opposite parties to refund the excess amount and to pay the compensation but to no effect and no reply have been given by the opposite parties to the said legal notice. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to refund the entire excessive amount charged from him alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that there is no privity of the contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. As per the transaction entered into between the distributor i.e. the opposite party No.4 and the Corporation, the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent as per Clause 17 of the agreement. To support its version the opposite party No.1 has referred the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No.1212 of 2011 in case titled M/s Barnala Gas Service Vs. Tarsem Chand and others, decided on 31.8.2012 and the precedent laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Shri Hansmukhbhai M.Patel, First Appeal No.527 of 2006, decided on 13.8.2012. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the Corporation reserves its right to take any action against the distributorship as per its norms in this regard.
3. The opposite party Nos.2&3 are deleted on the statement suffered by the counsel of the complainant on dated 18.3.2013 vide order dated 18.3.2013 from the array of the opposite parties.
4. The opposite party No.4 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and admitted that on 17.1.2013 the government ordered the Oil Companies to give 9 LPG subsidized refills in one year and further ordered to give 5 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013. The complainant got refill from the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 and charged Rs.997.50 against the memo No.9736 dated 19.1.2013 from him as price of the 4th LPG refill. The opposite party No.4 has not charged any excess amount as alleged by the complainant. The true facts are that the complainant approached the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 for the refill of the LPG. The computer operator of the opposite party No.4 requested the complainant that the notification regarding the amendment of the provisions for supply of 9 subsidized gas cylinders has yet not been received and as such he should wait uptill the evening and shall be benefited by getting the subsidized refill cylinder but the complainant requested the computer operator that he urgently required the LPG refill cylinder as such the same may be provided to him for which he is ready to pay its requisite amount and further he was assured that he shall be provided two more subsidized cylinders upto 31.3.2013 as he had obtained only three subsidized cylinders from 1.9.2012 to 18.1.2013. As per the oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite party No.4, the complainant was lateron provided two more subsidized gas cylinders on 16.2.2013 and 12.3.2013, in this way he has already been supplied 5 subsidized cylinders w.e.f. 1.9.2012 to 31.3.2013 i.e. on 5.10.2012, 8.11.2012, 7.12.2012, 16.2.2013 and 12.3.2013. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to harass the opposite party No.4 and to extract the money from it by misusing the process of the law. The opposite party No.4 has not charged any excess amount from the complainant rather it gave the LPG refill as a good service gesture and fully accommodated him while providing him the gas cylinder on 19.1.2013 on his request, when he was urgently in need of the refill of the LPG. The complainant has already been provided with two subsidized gas cylinders which were due to him but this material fact has been concealed by him.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The submission of the complainant is that he was holding the LPG connection bearing No.33154 from the opposite party No.4. As per the government scheme the complainant had to get 3 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013 and thereafter he had to get the LPG on non subsidized rates. On 17.1.2013, the government ordered the Oil Companies to give 9 LPG subsidized refills in one year and further ordered to give 5 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013 and the rate of the non subsidized refills has been raised to Rs.46.50 over and above already charged. The abovesaid orders have been published in the newspapers dated 18th January, 2013 and the orders were made effective from the midnight of 17th and 18th January 2013. The complainant got refill from the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 and it charged Rs.997.50 against the memo No.9736 dated 19.1.2013 from him as the price of the 4th LPG refill although the opposite party No.4 was bound to supply the LPG refill at subsidized rate. The complainant raised the objection against charging of the excess amount, on this the opposite party No.4 refused to supply the LPG refill at subsidized rate on the pretext that it has not received any letter from the company and charged the increased rate of non subsidized refill amounting to Rs.46.50 in excess than the earlier rate of non subsidized LPG refill, which was also raised through the same news and made applicable from the midnight of 17.1.2013.
8. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party No.1 is that there is no privity of the contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. As per the transaction entered into between the distributor i.e. the opposite party No.4 and the Corporation, the distributor shall act and always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent as per Clause 17 of the agreement.
9. The opposite party No.4 submitted that on 17.1.2013 the government ordered the Oil Companies to give 9 LPG subsidized refills in one year and further ordered to give 5 LPG subsidized refills cylinder from September 2012 to 31st March 2013. The complainant got refill from the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 and it charged Rs.997.50 against the memo No.9736 dated 19.1.2013 from him as price of the 4th LPG refill. The opposite party No.4 has not charged any excess amount as alleged by the complainant. As the complainant approached the opposite party No.4 on 19.1.2013 for the refill of the LPG, the computer operator of the opposite party No.4 requested him that the notification regarding the amendment of the provisions for supply of 9 subsidized gas cylinders has yet not been received as such he should wait uptill the evening and shall be benefited by getting the subsidized cylinder but the complainant requested the computer operator that he is urgently required the gas cylinder in question as such the same may be provided to him for which he is ready to pay its requisite amount and further he was assured that he shall be provided two more subsidized cylinders upto 31.3.2013 as he had obtained three subsidized cylinders from 1.9.2012 to 18.1.2013. As per the oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite party No.4, the complainant was lateron provided two more subsidized gas cylinders on 16.2.2013 and 12.3.2013 and he has already been supplied 5 subsidized gas cylinders w.e.f. 1.9.2012 to 31.3.2013 i.e. on 5.10.2012, 8.11.2012, 7.12.2012, 16.2.2013 and 12.3.2013. The opposite party No.4 accommodated the complainant and provided him the gas cylinder on 19.1.2013 on his request as he was urgently in need of the same.
10. A perusal of Ex.OP-2 shows that the subsidized gas cylinders has been given to the complainant on 5.10.2012, 8.11.2012, 7.12.2012, 16.2.2013 and 12.3.2013 beside this on 19.1.2013 the non subsidized refill gas cylinder has been given to him for Rs.997.50, this fact has been proved from the gas cylinder refill receipt Ex.C10/blue book which shows that the complainant has received 5 subsidized gas cylinders as per the notification. The contention of the complainant is that on 19.1.2013 he was given the non subsidized cylinder whereas on 17.1.2013 the government has notified that the consumer will get 5 LPG subsidized refills from September 2012 to 31st March 2013. Thus we are of the opinion that if the opposite party No.4 has received the notification before giving the refill cylinder they must have given the same to the complainant on the subsidized rates. The complainant has failed to prove his allegations with cogent and convincing evidence moreover he has not lodged any protest immediately with the opposite party No.4. He has filed the present complaint on dated 28.2.2013 before filing of this complaint he has already taken the 4th refill on 16.2.2013 and the complaint was fixed for consideration/its admission till 18.3.2013. During this period he again took the 5th refill cylinder on subsidized rate. After receiving the refill on 16.2.2013, he must have realized that uptill 31.3.2013 he is entitled for only one more refill cylinder, so to take more refill cylinder and benefit of the news given on 17.1.2013 for getting one extra cylinder he preferred the present complaint, where the said notification has not reached to the opposite party No.4 till the morning 19.1.2013. Furthermore as per Ex.C1 'It has been decided to increase the entitlement of subsidized domestic LPG cylinders till March 2013 from 3 to 5 cylinders. However, no refund shall be admissible on any LPG domestic cylinder already supplied at non- subsidized price during the period 14.9.2012 till date. For FY 2013-14, the entitlement of subsidized domestic LPG cylinder shall increase from 6 to 9'. The complainant has downloaded Ex.C1 from the internet but this e-mail print does not show that the notification has been circulated to the opposite party No.4 till morning of 19.1.2013.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
28-06-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
