BHOOMI GAS BOTTLING COMPANY LTD. vs M.S. MOORTHY

-THE opposite parties made an advertisement in daily newspapers stating that they have started a new gas company in the name of Bhoomi Gas and promised to get new gas cylinder connection for cooking purposes. When the complainant visited the opposite party, they represented that they have sufficient material to supply number of Bhoomi Gas Cylinders to their customers and that there will not be any difficulty and they can make an uninterrupted supply. Believing the words, the complainant booked for supply of one gas connection. THE opposite parties received Rs. 1,000/- towards service charges and Rs. 2,400/- towards cost of stove, regulator, tube and for service charges, etc., But, they did not give supply as promised. Though the opposite parties assured that they will provide uninterrupted supply of gas refills as and when it was required by its members, the opposite parties supplied only after a delay of two or three months after demand. Due to the same, the complainant was put to lot of hardship because of the non-supply of gas cylinder in time. When questioned, the opposite parties accepted the non-supply of gas and stated as there was some scarcity in the supply of cylinders, and suggested to the complainant to obtain another connection. THErefore, believing the representation, the complainant agreed to purchasae another gas connection for which he paid Rs. 1,650/-. Even then, the opposite parties did not supply the cylinder within reasonable time. For the year 1996-97, the opposite parties failed to supply cylinder. THEy supplied cylinder only in the month of May, 1997. When the cylinders became empty and a demand was made, the opposite parties could not supply immediately and they could supply only in the 2nd week of June, 1997. Thus, the failure to supply and on time has put the complainant and his family to lot of inconvenience, hardship and thus there is deficiency in service for which the complainant prays for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation.

THE opposite parties contended as follows : THE allegation that the opposite parties did not supply the cylinder regularly but only after a delay of two or three months every time is not accepted. It is further not admitted that on account of the non-supply, the complainant and his family were put to much agony and hardship. THE claim for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- on that ground is highly fanciful. THE 1st opposite party is only an agent of Bhoomi Gas Bottling Company which is at Chennai. THE cylinders were obtained from the said Company and were supplied to the customers. Since there was some difficulty in their obtaining gas from abroad, they could not supply in time. Even this situation was only for a short period. THEreafter, it was rectified. THE opposite parties are now prepared to supply regularly gas to the complainant. THEre is no deficiency in service. THE complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, the opposite parties pray that the complaint be dismissed with cost. The lower Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,050/- and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation along with a cost of Rs. 500/-. Hence, this appeal.

It is admitted in the version that there was a delay in supply. But, they would say that the delay has been rectified and they have been supplying regularly. The complainant through his Counsel has sent a notice on 27.6.1997 containing the allegations about non-supply and delayed supply. The opposite parties has issued a circular on 20.12.1996 stating that a meeting of the distributors and sellers of Bhoomi Gas was held. In this, it is stated that on account of the Bhoomi Gas Company failing to supply gas regularly, the customers are dissatisfied with the dealers and, therefore, it was decided to take necessary steps to prevent such a situation. It further states that there is undue delay in supply of gas to the customers by the dealers and it has caused much heartburn and dissatisfaction among the customers. Thus, the fact that a notice was sent has not been replied coupled with the further fact that a meeting was held by the dealers of the Bhoomi Gas wherein they have specifically referred to the undue delay in supply of gas dealers and the dissatisfaction among the customers, it would prove that there is deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. It is also to be pointed out that the 3rd opposite party has not chosen to appear and contest the matter. It is only the dealers who have chosen to appear and contest the same. From the very admitted case of the opposite parties in the version and from the records produced, it is obvious that there has been frequent and undue delay in the matter of supply of gas to the customers thereby resulting in hardship to the customers. This would amount to a clear deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable. In the circumstances, we do not, therefore, see any merit in this appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order of the lower Forum. Cost Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal dismissed.