State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hindustan Patroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Davinder Kumar on 26 April, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 98 of 2016 Date of Institution : 28.03.2016 Date of Decision : 26.04.2016 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager LPG Regional Office, Jind, Haryana. ......Appellant/Opposite Party No.1. Versus Davinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishore R/o H.No.84, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Gas Agency, Plot No.9, Near Rally Ground, Sector 25 West, Chandigarh throughits owner/proprietor. ....Respondents. Argued by: Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Kamal Satija, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Sanjeev K. Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.2. First Appeal No. : 93 of 2016 Date of Institution : 22.03.2016 Date of Decision : 26.04.2016 The Chandigarh Gas Agency, Plot No.9, (Near Rally Ground), Sector 25 (West), Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh. H. S. Atwal. ......Appellant/Opposite Party No.2. Versus Davinder Kumar son of Shri Ram Kishor, resident of House No.84, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6A, Tel Bhawan, Madhya Marg, Sector 19, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. ....Respondents. Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Kamal Satija, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.98 of 2016 and 93 of 2016 filed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 respectively, against the order dated 23.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum'), vide which, it allowed consumer complaint bearing No.370 of 2015, filed by the complainant, qua the Opposite Parties, and directed them as under: -
"10. In the light of the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that there is a lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint and it must, therefore, succeed on its own weight and strength. The Complainant is definitely and surely entitled to have independent LPG Gas Connection in his respective name as separate and independent family units do exist, while he is residing in the same house. As such, the act of the Opposite Parties in depriving him of the use of such gas connection which he is rightly entitled to, is certainly not only deficiency in service on their part, but also indulgence in a gross unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint must succeed in favour of the Complainant and against Opposite Parties. We order accordingly.
11. The Opposite Parties shall, jointly and severally, do the following in favour of the Complainant:-
(i) The Opposite Parties shall release the LPG gas connection in favour of the Complainant forthwith.
(ii) The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation @ Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain for not releasing the perfectly valid gas connection in his name, thereby violating their own prescribed Rules, despite the Complainant fulfilling all the necessary requirements.
(iii) The Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
12. The aforesaid order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay Rs.25,000/-, along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of realization, besides complying with the rest of the order as at (i) and (iii) in the foregoings."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being a registered L.P.G. Consumer of Opposite Party No.2 (Consumer No.531395 against SV 1007272 dated 23.09.2009), had been using only one gas connection in his kitchen and was getting refilling continuously till 25.1.2015. After 25.1.2015, Opposite Party No.2 stopped the supply of gas cylinder citing the reason that there were two gas connections at the address of the complainant. On the asking of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant submitted an undertaking dated 7.3.2015, that there was no other gas connection in his name. Upon inspection of the premises, it was found by Opposite Party No.2 that there was only one gas connection. The complainant made numerous visits to the office of Opposite Party No.2 to know the status of the matter, but to no avail. It was stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed, seeking various reliefs.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the last supply of refill of cooking gas was done on 25.1.2015. It was further stated that there existed 5 LPG connections in different names at the address of the complainant, out of which, 4 gas connections belonged to the complainant and his family members and the 5th LPG connection was in the name of one Mr. Sunil Singh Tiwari at the same very address. It was further stated that the gas connection of the complainant was blocked automatically by the Automatic Program of Opposite Party No.1 because of multiple gas connections in different name but at same address. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, also took similar pleas as were taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement. It was stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, both the Opposite Parties have filed the instant appeals.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The case of appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, is that the connection of the respondent No.1/complainant was blocked automatically by Automatic Program of Opposite Party No.1. The case of respondent No.1/complainant is that he had only one gas connection and despite his furnishing an undertaking on the asking of Opposite Party No.1 that there was no other gas connection in his name, appellants did not release the blocked connection on account of which, he (respondent No.1/complainant) underwent lot of mental agony and physical harassment.
10. Admittedly, when the gas connection of respondent No.1/complainant was blocked; he approached the appellants, a number of times, for restoring the said connection and when for about a year, no action was taken to redress his grievance, he was compelled to file the consumer complaint. The appellants/Opposite Parties were duty bound to look into the matter, when approached by respondent No.1/complainant but apparently, they did not take any action. There is nothing on record that existence of five LPG connections in different names at the same address, had any connection with the respondent No.1/complainant. No satisfactory explanation or reasoning has been brought on record by the appellants that the gas connection, in question, was rightly blocked. From Paras No.6 to 9 of impugned order passed by the Forum, which are extracted hereunder, it is clear that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service to respondent No.1/complainant:-
"6........The notification issued by the Department on 10.09.2009 making amendment to an earlier order dated 26.04.2000, passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, has been perused by us. The relevant part of order dated 26.4.2000, which is relevant in this case, is Rule 1(a)(i)(gg), 1(b)(i) and 4(c) which read as under:-
"1(a)(i)(gg) "household" means a family consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and dependent parents living together in a dwelling unit having common kitchen:-
Provided that a Liquefied Petroleum Gas connection shall be issued only in the name of any adult member of the household by a Government Oil Company under the public distribution system."
"1(b)(i) for the word "person" wherever it occurs, the word "household" shall be substituted."
"4(c) store or use or cause to be stored or used a cylinder filled with the liquefied petroleum gas except in a cool dry, well ventilated and accessible place under cover, away from boiler, open flames, steam pipes or any potential source of heat."
7. The entire case of the Opposite Parties is based on the application of the aforesaid clauses and the contention is that the Complainant is not entitled to more than one LPG connection under the rules. Another pleading of the Opposite Parties, which is of course not a part of the aforesaid government orders, is that the Complainant is not having three separate and independent kitchens in his house; whereas, the requirement for providing more than one gas connection is that only one gas connection can be given in one kitchen and, therefore, unless and until the persons in question have three separate and independent kitchens, they can not have three gas connections.
8. On close perusal of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, dated 26th April, 2000, as also the notification dated 10th September, 2009", it reveals that there is no such requirement imposed or laid down by the Government of India that the house in question must have three separate and independent kitchens, in order to avail three gas connections. The only clear cut and unambiguous requirement of the Government is that one gas connection is to be given for one household. The word "household" means a family consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and dependent parents living together in a dwelling unit having common kitchen. Beyond this requirement, there is no other condition imposed by the Government for availing more than one LPG connection. In the instant case, Complainant is having an independent unit of his family, comprising the husband and the wife. The requirement of the Govt. is certainly and surely not one gas connection for one house, but one gas connection for one household. Thus, there is a clear cut distinction already made by the Govt. of India between a house and a household. As per present Rules, of the Government of India, there could be more than one gas connection in the same house, provided there is more than one household in that house. In the present case, in our opinion, there are many independent family units, which are a part and parcel of one joint family, operating in the same house. The question whether they are having separate independent kitchens in the form of separate physical civil roofed/ walled structures or not, is not relevant at all, as such a requirement has not been imposed by the Government so far on the public at large. The word "kitchen" used in the notification would in fact mean only a separate and distinct cooking area not necessarily a separate fixed physical roofed/ walled structure/ building, comprising four walls and roof with other civil facilities. In a large number of houses in this country, including Govt. houses, cooking is being done not necessarily only in the kitchen structure, but even outside in the Verandah or any other open or covered or enclosed place or even in some make shift space available, which is of course a part of the house itself. Moreover, when the LPG connection was issued, such a condition was never imposed on the Complainant. It is emphatically made clear that the Complainant must have suffered immensely at the hands of the Opposite Parties, without getting any relief or redressal of his grievances at the hands of Opposite Parties.
9. The Opposite Parties have not been able to explain as to how and why they had released earlier gas connections in favour of the Complainant, and not only that they allowed the use of these gas connections for long time, without ever raising any objection or creating problem. It is a matter of deep regret and concern that even though Opposite Party No.1 happens to be one of the top most Public Sector Undertakings (Gem PSU) of Government of India, it has exhibited a totally apathetic, callous, unsympathetic and inhuman attitude towards the Complainant, who is a respectable citizen. It is high time that this PSU rises from its deep slumber, listens to this most urgent wakeup call and meets the genuine needs of its esteemed & valued customers. It is further clarified that there is a special duty cast upon the Senior Executives of this prestigious Govt. Company to shed their inertia, gird up their loins and start serving their valued customers in the right earnest, instead of dealing with them so causally on account of the fact that theirs is a MONOPOLY BUSINESS and the Customers do not have much choice as where to go. They must also understand that they and they alone are there only because of the customers and not vice-versa."
In view of above, blocking of gas connection of respondent No.1/complainant on the ground that there were multiple gas connections at the same address, was in no manner, justified.
11. However, the Forum while allowing complaint of respondent No.1/complainant and directing the appellants/Opposite Parties to release the blocked LPG gas connection in favour of respondent No.1/complainant, also awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain suffered by him besides litigation costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.
12. In the face and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, compensation awarded by the Forum is on the higher side. The same, if reduced to Rs.5,000/-, shall be adequate to meet the ends of justice. To this extent, the impugned order needs modification.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
14. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.98/2016 and 93/2016 filed by the appellants (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 respectively) are partly accepted. The impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Forum is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Forum is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Rest of the impugned order shall remain intact.
15. The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.93 of 2016.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
April 26, 2016.
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT [DEV RAJ] MEMBER [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER