Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/47/2013

R.MuthuKrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharathi Indhen Gas Agency and One another. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jul 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 19.09.2013

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 18.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com.,   ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.47/2013

 

DECIDED ON THIS   18^th   DAY OF JULY  2014.

 

 

            R.Muthukrishnan,

            S/o Rengasami,

            No.3-123A, Raja Street,

            Puragramam, Thittachery,

            Nagapattinam  District. – 609 703.                                       …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1.   Parvathy Indane Gas Agency,

Represented by its Proprietor,

           Mr.Senthil Veerappan,

            No.7, Neela Vadam Pokki Street,

           Nagapattinam  District 611 001.

2. The Chief Area Manager,

Indane Area Office,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Triveni (II Floor),B-35, Shastri Road,

Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli – 620 018.                              ….. Opposite parties

 

  

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 15.07.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.MuthuKrishnan, the complainant  in person, Thiru.K. Kalidasan counsel for the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party having been set parte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

 

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. 

                        3. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant has been a registered consumer of cooking gas of the opposite parties since July 2001 is consumer no.994 and with consumer no.994 he was  getting the supply of cooking gas refill cylinder from the 1^st opposite party since May 2010.  On 6.12.2011 when the complainant requested  the 1^st opposite party to supply cooking gas refill cylinder, the latter asked the complainant to bring the documents relating to the gas supply  for verification as to whether multiple cooking gas connections was  availed by the complainant.  On 08.12.2011 the complainant personally produced the documents. On 23.12.2011 and thereafter repeated requests were made in writing by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party who did not supply the gas refill cylinder and stopped the supply of cooking gas to the complainant from 25.12.2011, which is the negligent act resulting in  the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and  the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties for immediate restoration of the supply of  cooking gas to the complainant and award the compensation of Rs.90000/-(Rupees ninety thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties with exemplary cost.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that originally the complainant obtained gas service connection at Chennai based on his passport and then he got it transferred to his Puragramam village with the Andal Gas Agencies, Nannilam, and further he has got another gas service connection at Chennai at No.10, Eswaran Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai, that as per the policy of the Central Government there could be only one LPG connection for one household and  the person  having multiple service connections is bound to surrender excess service connections to the distributor.  Since the complainant was having multiple service connections, one at his village and the another at Chennai, as per the order of the Government of India barring multiple connections in  favour of an individual the opposite party had to stop the supply of cooking gas refill cylinder to the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        5. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit in support of his claim and filed 7 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A7.  The 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of his defence and has filed 46 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B46. Both the sides have filed their written arguments.

6. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

7. Point 1: Exhibit A1 is the Indane customer subscription Voucher dated 05.07.2011 which shows that he was a customer of the 2^nd opposite party since July 2001.  Exhibit A2 is the customer card of the complainant his customer number being 994.  Exhibit A3 is the refill cylinder voucher evidencing the complainant’s receipt of the  refill cylinder from the 1^st opposite party on 18.06.2011.  Exhibit A4 is the letter given by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party with copies of  the documents related to his gas service connection for verification.  Exhibit A5 and A6 are the letters sent by the complainant requesting for the supply of Indane gas refill cylinder immediately and Exhibit A7 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, warning them of his proposal to move the District Consumer Forum in case he fails to resume the supply of gas refill cylinder immediately. 

                        8.  The 1^st opposite party has filed as many as 46 documents, that is, all the documents filed by him in CC.41/2013 on the file of this Forum, another complaint filed by this complainant as an Advocate of one Thirumathi.Navaneetham.  Exhibit B1 to B4, B9 to B14, B20, B21, B23 to B25, B27 to B29, B31, B34, B35, B39 to B42 are relating to the claim of the complainant Thirumathi.Navaneetham in the said CC.No.41/2013 and therefore they are irrelevant and extraneous for deciding the dispute in this complaint. Exhibits A1, A2, A4, A5 and A7 filed by the complainant are also filed as Exhibits B7, B5, B15, B16, and B36 respectively by the 1^st opposite party also.  As far as the complaint is concerned the complainant’s allegation is that the 1^st opposite party has stopped the supply of cooking gas refill cylinder in an arbitratory manner and his negligent act tantamounts to deficiency of service resulting in the untold mental agony and hardship to the complainant, who had to resort to use of fire wood for preparing the food. 

9. The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that as per the Exhibit B45, the letter sent by the Director on behalf of the Government of India, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas, to the All the Chairmen of Petroleum Companies the Amendment in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000, provides for one LPG domestic connection for one household (Instead of per person earlier) and this may be enforced  strictly to  rule out multiple connections in any household  and as the complainant has got multiple gas connection one at Chennai and another at his native place of Puragramam village in Nagapattinam District, he has rightly stopped the supply of cooking gas refill cylinder to him and therefore there is no deficiency of service on his part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        10. The main relief sought by the complainant before this Forum is for resumption supply of cooking gas refill cylinder and for compensation for the deficidency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had already filed  the Writ petition seeking the same relief before the Hon’ble  High Court of Judicature  at Madras, as evidenced by Exhibit B17 and as the Writ Petition was dismissed he had preferred  Writ Appeal No.1130/2012 on the file of the High Court of Judicature  at Madras, and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on 08.10.2013, as would be evidenced by Exhibit B46, the judgment in this said Writ Appeal. 

                        11.  The learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that since the relief sought by the complainant in the Writ Petition has been negatived by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, he is not entitled to maintain this complaint seeking the same relief.  The complainant on the other hand has argued that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is the special enactment passed for the purpose of protecting and promoting the  interest of all the consumers and under Sec. 3 of the Act this Forum could grant reliefs sought by the complainant as the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and further contended that he is having two different households, one at Chennai and another at his Native place in Nagapattinam District,  far off for opt place and the supply of gas refill cylinder ought not to have been stopped as it is an essential commodity for his very livelihood and subsistence on earth.

                        12. In Exhibit A46, the said judgment on the Writ Appeal the Hon’ble High Court has opined that the said submission of the complainant lacks, merit and substance as admittedly the complainant is  having two LPG connections one bearing consumer no.16825 of Jaya Gas Agency, Valasaravakkam, Chennai at his residence at  no.10, Eswaran Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai-89 and the other bearing consumer no.994 at Thittacheri, Nagapattinam.  The complainant has not chosen to challenge the vires of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000, and the communication dated 23.09.2009 under Exhibit B45. 

 

13. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature  at Madras has observed in this judgment on the said Writ Appeal no.1130/2012, at Para 12  as Follows:-

  “Admittedly, Liquefied Petroleum Gas is supplied at subsidized rate and it is a concession extended to the consumers.  The Government of India, taking into consideration the alarming and excess demand for getting gas connection, thought fit to introduce an amendment to liquefied petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000, by introducing the definition of the word “household” by replacing the word “person”.  The definition of “household” has been extracted in the earlier paragraph and in the light of the meaning to the word “household”, the writ petitioner can have only one gas connection either at Nagapattinam or at Chennai.  The authorities having found that the writ petitioner is having  more than one connection, have disconnected the same in respect of his gas connection at Nagapattinam.  However, they continue to supply gas cylinder to the writ petitioner at Chennai in the above said address.

13. The learned single judge having found that supply of domestic LPG is at a concessional/subsidized rate and there was a heavy burden on the part of the Petroleum Companies, has rightly found that by elevating the right of the writ petitioner/Appellant to have a LPG connection under Public Distribution System to the level of  fundamental right, the court cannot destroy the fundamental right of the billions of people”.   

                        14. The contention of the complainant is that under sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 this Forum has to view his grievance and complaint in different perspective  and concept and has to grant the  relief sought by him.  As the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, has given the right verdict in view of the Amendment in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000, this Forum could not find any reason to deviate from the said decision. Therefore this Forum also does not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in stopping the supply of Indane gas refill cylinder  to the complainant, who is admittedly having multiple gas connections.

                        16. Point 2: In the result the complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for in this complaint. However since the Indane cooking gas is very essential commodity to ensure the fundamental right of the complainant to life and his subsistence of livelihood on earth, the 1^st opposite party is directed to continue to supply the Indane gas refill cylinder to the complainant at the same gas connection no.994, without the subsidy granted by the Central Government. If the complainant is ready and willing to avail the supply of the Indane gas refill cylinder without the subsidy granted by the Central Government, he shall give his option in writing to the 1^st opposite party within 30 days from the date of this order. On getting such requisition  from the complainant  the 1^st opposite party shall continue to supply,  the Indane gas refill cylinder as usual to the complainant periodically  without the subsidized rate.  If the complainant fails to exercise his option within the said period of 30 days, the presumption shall be that he is not willing to avail the supply of indane gas refill cylinder without the subsidy by the Government, and the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically. There is no order as to cost.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed  by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this    18^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List  of document   filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.05.07.2001: The Xerox copy of the Indane customer subscription Voucher

   no.1077514 of  the complainant issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt.12.05.2010: The Xerox copy of the Gas connection Card for the Customer

   No.994 of the complainant issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3/Dt.18.06.2011: The Xerox copy of the receipt for the payment of refill gas cylinder

    given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.08.12.2011:The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

  opposite party.

Ex.A5/Dt.23.12.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the  1^st

    opposite party by hand.

Ex.A6/Dt.23.12.2011: Letter sent by the complainant to  the General Manager of Indian

   Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai, under RPAD with copy to the 2^nd    

    opposite party.

Ex.A7/Dt.14.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant to
                                       the opposite parties.

 

List  of document   filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1/Dt.26.09.2011: The copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite

   party.          

Ex.B2/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the customer history card of the complainant

              given  by the 1^st opposite party to

Ex.B3/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the Domestic Gas connection Cylinder

    verification form by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B4/Dt.30.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

    opposite party.

Ex.B5/Dt.05.07.2009: Domestic customer cardno.994 of the complainant issued

    by  the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B6/Dt.28.05.2001: TV Form issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd to

   the complainant.

Ex.B7/Dt.05.07.2001: Indane customer subscription voucher of the complainant

   given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B8/Dt.29.10.1997:The Xerox copy of the Passport of the complainant.

Ex.B9/Dt.04.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party

    to the said Mrs.Navaneetham.

Ex.B10/Dt.6.10.2011:Xerox copy of the letter sent by the  said Mrs.Navaneetham to the

   District Supply and Consumer Protection Officer, Nagapattinam.

Ex.B11/Dt.8.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the

   District Collector – cum – Chairman of the District Consumer 

   Protection Council, Nagapattinam.

 

Ex.B12/Dt.10.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the another letter sent by the Complainant   

     District  Collector – cum – Chairman of the District

     Consumer Protection Council, Nagapattinam with copy to the 1^st

      opposite  party.

Ex.B13/Dt.12.10.2011:The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

opposite party.

Ex.B14/Dt.08.11.2011:The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant to

                                         the 2^nd opposite party with copy to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B15/Dt.08.12.2011 : The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said complainant to

     the1^st opposite party.

Ex.B16/Dt.23.12.2011:The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said complainant to

     the1^st opposite party.

Ex.B17/Dt.09.01.2012: The Xerox copy of the writ petition  filed by

     complainant against the Indian Oil corporation Ltd,

     Chennai and 1^st opposite party in W.P.No.1146/2012 on the file   

     of the  Madras High Court.

Ex.B18/Dt.27.01.2012: The copy of the notice of hearing by the Asst. Registrar(Writs)

     on W.P.No.1146/2012

 

Ex.B19/Dt.28.01.2012: The Xerox copy of the Notice of hearing sent by the complainant

     to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai and the 1^st opposite

     party.

Ex.B20/Dt.29.02.2012: Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st

     opposite party.

Ex.B21/Dt.02.04.2012: Xerox copy of another letter sent by complainant to the 1^st

                opposite party.

Ex.B22/Dt. Nil             : The Xerox copy of the notice on the Memorandum of the Appeal

       in W.A.no.1130/2012 on the file of the High Court of Mardas.

Ex.B23/Dt.05.05.2012: Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st

      opposite party.

Ex.B24/Dt.25.06.2012: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to    

    Mrs.Sirajunisha.

Ex.B25/Dt.20.07.2012: Xerox copy of the notice Reminder No.3 sent by the

     complainant  to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B26/Dt.11.09.2012: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant  to the

                                         1^st opposite party.

Ex.B27/Dt.05.10.2012: Copy of the Last and Final Reminder sent by the complainant to

     the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B28/Dt. Nil               : The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Public of the    

                                       Kattumavadi  Panchayat to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B29/Dt.03.12.2012:The Xerox copy of the complaint filed by the 1^st opposite party’s

     staff against the complainant before the Thittachery police

      station.

 

Ex.B30/Dt.10.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by complainant to 

     the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai.

Ex.B31/Dt.31.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the receipt of the Police Complaint

     given by the  Sub Inspector of Police, Thittachery P.S.

Ex.B32/Dt.31.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the

     complainant  against the Indane Oil Corporation and the 1^st

      opposite party for an interim order.

Ex.B33/Dt.07.01.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant  to  the

     General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and

      1^st opposite party.

Ex.B34/Dt.26.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant  to  the

     General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and

                                          1^st opposite party.    

Ex.B35/Dt.07.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant to

      the opposite parties.

 

Ex.B36/Dt.14.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by complainant  to the

                opposite parties.

Ex.B37/Dt.17.12.2011: The Xerox copy of the customer inspection Report Summary of

      the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B38/Dt.   Nil            : The Xerox copy of the LPG Multiple Connection List of the 1^st

     opposite party.

Ex.B39/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the Customer History Card of the 1^st opposite

     Party.

Ex.B40/Dt.04.9.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

    said Mrs. Navaneetham.

Ex.B41/Dt.30.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said Mrs. Navaneetham

     to the 1^st  opposite party.

Ex.B42/Dt.03.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said Mrs. Navaneetham

     to the 1^st  opposite party.

Ex.B43/Dt.01.11.2012: The Xerox copy of the circular by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

     Madurai Area Office, to all the Gas Connection Distributors.

Ex.B44/Dt.     Nil         : The Xerox copy of the advertisement of notice of the Indian Oil

                                        Corporation Ltd to surrender extra LPG connections.

 

Ex.B45/Dt.23.9.2009: The Xerox copy of the letter of the Central Government relating to

                                         the Amendment in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of

                                          Supply and Distribution) order 2000.

Ex.B46/Dt.08.10.2013: The Judgment in Writ Appeal No.1130/2012 on the file of High

                                        Court of Judicature Madras.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.47/ 2013

Order Dt:18.07.2014.