IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 19.11.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.309/2014
between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
1. Sri. P. Gopinadha Panicker 1. The Manager, Venu’s Gas
Kadampat, Vishaversserikara Agency, Mannar
Mannar P.O., Alappuzha Dt. (By Adv. R. Vijayakumar)
2. Sri. R. Gopalakrishna Panicker 2. Transporting Staff
-do- -do- (Driver & Helper) - do -
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainants are the consumers of the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the first opposite party’s staff. The complainants are retired government servants and senior citizens with serious ailments. On 10th September, 2014 the first complainant booked LPG with the opposite party. The opposite party didn’t make it a point to deliver the said gas to the complainant until 20th October, 2014. The complainant approached the first opposite party, and the lady staff of the first opposite party impressed upon the complainant that though arrangements to cause delivery of the cylinder to the complainant was promptly made, the delivery staff was not at all prepared to effect delivery of the cylinder to the complainant. When the Manager was contacted he expressed his helplessness of having little control over the union staff. According to the complainants the opposite party right from its setting up is weighed down with corruption from top to bottom. The opposite party’s functioning is marked with malpractice everywhere. The opposite parties without any norms and rules collect excessive charges from its consumers and cause inordinate delay in the delivery of the cylinder. The opposite parties used to unlawfully sell LPG outside and accumulate exorbitant profit. What is more the opposite party’s staffs often misbehave with the consumers. The complainants sustained immeasurable mental agony, the complainant contends. On being aggrieved on this the complainants approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent the first opposite party turned up and filed version. According to the opposite party, the complainant booked gas with them, on 16th October, 2014 the delivery staff was delegated to deliver the cylinder to the complainant and when he arrived with the gas cylinder at the complainant’s residence the same was locked with no occupants therein. It is true that during the month of September, October and so on there was some sort of delay in the delivery of the LPG to the consumers which was solely due to the dearth of the same followed with the labour problem in the Kollam plant. That apart the opposite party never caused any deficiency in distributing the cylinder. The opposite party at no point of time gathered excessive charges from its consumers nor did carry out unfair trade practices namely selling cylinder to the non-consumers. All along the opposite party has been functioning in line with the rules and regulations mandated by the IOC. It is the complainant who misbehaved with the opposite party’s staffs in their office and advance false allegations against them. The opposite party never committed deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for, the opposite party fervently contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The first opposite party filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1.
4. Keeping in mind the contentions of the parties the questions that are raised for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the opposite party misbehaved with the complainants?
3) Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
5. We went through the complaint, version, proof affidavits and other materials placed on record by both the parties. On a plain perusal of the complaint, it appears that though brooder allegations are put forth by the complainants, the specific grievance of the complainants are that the opposite parties frequently cause delay in effecting delivery of the LPG to them. Also opposite parties impose illegitimate charges during delivery. That apart most of pthe staff’s behavior to the complainants is not at all fair. According to the opposite parties, there was some sort of impediment in the distribution of the cylinder consequent upon the non-availability of the same due to the labour problem in the Kollam plant. The opposite parties never collected any charges unlawfully from any customers, nor did its staff misbehaved with the complainants. Holding the contentions of both the parties, we made a meticulous analysis of the entire materials available on record. Concededly there was some kind of delay in the delivery of the cylinder for one or other reasons. However, it does not come out in evidence that the opposite parties have collected additional charges from the complainants. At the same time we are persuaded to believe that the complainants had to sustain some sort of harassment from the part of the opposite parties. Needless to say, in this context the complainants inevitably are entitled to relief.
In the context of what have been elaborated supra, the opposite parties are directed to effect prompt delivery of the LPG to the complainants henceforth. Further the first opposite party is directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D (Member)
Ext.A5 - Copy of the patient registration card
Ext.A6 series - Copy of the prescriptions of medicine
Ext.A7 - Copy of the letter dated 24.10.14
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Soman. P. (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
