BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 1015 of 2008 Date of Institution : 29.08.2008 Date of Decision : 17.01.2011 1. Sh. K.L. Chadha (Retd. Government Servant), Senior Citizen, resident of House No.673, Sec.41-A, Chandigarh. 2. Sh. Tarun Chadha S/o Sh. K.L. Chadha, resident of House No.673, Sector –41-A, Chandigarh. 3. Smt. Nisha Chadha D/o Sh. K.L. Chadha, resident of House No.673, Sector –41-A, Chandigarh. ..…Complainants V e r s u s 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Registered Office: 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay 400020. 2. Rajiv Bhargava, Area Sales Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Tel Bhawan, Sector –19, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 3. K.L. Maini Proprietor M/s Parnam Gas Agencies (Authorized dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., SCO No.388, Sector –37-D, Chandigarh. 4. Sabharwal Gas Company (authorized dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) SCO No.51, Sector –47-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI PRESIDING MEMBER DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for Complainants. Sh.Atul Nehra, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2. OPs No. 3 & 4 already exparte. PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, PRESIDING MEMBER In brief the case of the complainant is that the Complainant is a retired Govt. Servant and Complainant No.2 & 3 are his son and daughter respectively. The Complainant got himself registered with Premier Gas Service in the year 1987 and paid a total sum of Rs.450/- for a gas cylinder and Rs.50/- for regulator and after the marriage of his son Complainant applied for the gas connection and after due verification, connection was issued to both the Complainants No.2 & 3 in their own names. After that on his retirement from service, the Complainant No.1 shifted to his own house at Sector 41, Chandigarh on 22.5.2008 and the Complainants approached the office of OP-3 i.e. Parnam Gas Agency with all relevant papers for re-registration of the gas connections with them. OP No. 3 straightway told the Complainants that he will register the Complainants only on the condition, that they will all, have to purchase new stoves/chullas and regulators from him, lest Complainants will not be registered. The Complainants are from middle class families and cannot afford to purchase new stoves / chullas and regulators etc. time and again. The Complainants have written many letters and given various representations to the officials of HPCL and other concerned authorities, but they have put deaf ears to the same. The complainants suffered tension and mental agony because of the callous attitude of the OPs and the complainants have approached this Forum with the following prayer: - i) To register the Complainants for their L.P.G. connections already standing in their names at their new and permanent address in the case of Complainants No. 2 & 3. ii) To pay Rs.4.50 lacs as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony faced by the Complainant and his family for not registering the Complainants despite of the fact that Complainants are valid connection holders of the OP No.1 for the last more than a decade. iii) To pay Rs.2500/- on account of traveling and misc. charges. iv) To pay Rs.35000/- as a cost of litigation. 2. In its reply OPs 1 & 2 took some preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. Further pleaded that an inspection was carried out by the answering OPs at the residence of the Complainants and it was found that they wanted connections to be fitted in the bed rooms, which is not permissible due to safety and security reasons. Hence the same were not allowed to be transferred by the answering OPs, as proper premises for affixing gas connections was not there. The Complainants were earlier issued connections by Sabharwal Gas Company (OP No.4), whose officials had inspected the house at that time and as there were different kitchens in that house, new connections were issued to the Complainants. It was further pleaded that the answering OPs never asked the Complainant to purchase a new stove / chullas and regulator for effecting the transfer of the gas connections. These OPs have finally pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant as well as OPs 1 & 2 (OPs 3 & 4 being exparte) and have also perused the documents placed on record thoroughly. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points / issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions / arrived at, accordingly. i] The basic facts of the case in respect of family of Complainant No. 1 having three gas connections with the OPs, the one in his own name (Complainant No.1) and the remaining two in the names of his son and daughter (Complainants No.2 & 3) respectively, when he was residing in the Govt. accommodation, have all been admitted. Having retired from service, he shifted to his own flat in Sector 41, Chandigarh on 22.5.2008 and thereafter on 27.8.2008, applied for the transfer of all three gas connections from M/s Premier Gas Agency, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh to M/s Parnam Gas Agency, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh (OP No.3) as also completed all required formalities for the purpose. While allowing the transfer of one gas connection in the name of Complainant No. 1, OP No. 3 refused to effect the transfer in the case of remaining two gas connections in the names of Complainants No. 2 and 3 respectively, on the ground that the house in question where the Complainants had then shifted after the retirement of Complainant No. 1, had only one kitchen and that for providing three gas connections, there have to be three separate and independent kitchens and not just one. On the contrary, the contention of the Complainants has been that the gas connections were not allowed to be transferred by OP No.3 solely on the ground that this OP wanted the Complainants to purchase new gas stoves and regulators etc. from them, for which they will have to make additional payments, apart from normal transfer charges. The Complainants say that since they belong to middle class families, they cannot afford to purchase the entire gas equipments time and again, as they were already in possession of the gas stoves and regulators obtained from the earlier Gas Agency i.e. M/s Premier Gas Service, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh, connections for which had subsequently been shifted to M/s Sabharwal Gas Company (OP No.4) and finally, on retirement and subsequent shifting of house, it was to be transferred/ shifted to M/s Parnam Gas Agency (OP No.3). The Complainant further contend that OP No. 4 had duly discharged the relevant documents in favour of OP No. 3, with a view to enable the Complainants to re-register themselves with OP No.3. As per the Complainants, they had repeatedly gone to OP No.3 for registering their transferred gas connections from OP No.4, but despite their best efforts, nothing has been done by OP No. 3 to register them in the case of Complainants No. 2 & 3 respectively; whereas, one gas connection after transfer has been duly registered in the case of Complainant No. 1 by OP No.3. ii] In the written statement/ reply submitted by OPs No. 1 & 2 (OPs No. 3 & 4 being already ex-parte), they have rebutted all the allegations made by the Complainants against them, saying that an inspection was carried out by the OPs at the premises of the Complainants and it was found that the Complainants wanted gas connections to be fitted in their bed rooms, which was not permissible due to safety and security reasons and hence, the same were not being transferred by the OPs, as proper premises of affixing the gas connections were not there. However, it is admitted that one gas connection was given along with regulator and cylinder in the name of Complainant No.1. It is further stated that earlier connections had been issued by M/s Sabharwal Gas Company, whose officials had inspected the house at that time and as there were three different kitchens, new connections were issued to the Complainants in the names of Complainants No. 2 & 3. It is further admitted that the Complainants had obtained transfer papers from OP No.4 in favour of OP No.3 and also that the Complainants did approach OP No.3 for re-registering themselves for the additional gas connections. It is contended that OP No. 3 conducted a physical verification of the new premises of the Complainants and it was found that new house had only one kitchen and thus, only one gas connection was activated in the kitchen of the house of the Complainants. It is also clarified that the person seeking gas connection should have a safe place for installing the said connection and in the present case, the Complainants have only one kitchen, but still want to activate other two gas connections in their bed rooms, which is not a safe place for the purpose and as such, the two additional gas connections were not allowed by the OPs. Apart from the above contentions, these OPs have also taken certain preliminary objections, stating that the present complaint contains disputed question of facts and, therefore, only a Civil Court is competent to adjudicate such matter. Based on these grounds, these OPs have prayed that the present complaint being devoid of merit be dismissed with exemplary costs. iii] The present complaint is a very old case, relating to the year 2008. During the course of proceedings, on 20.02.2009, a compromise was arrived at between the parties with the efforts of the Lok Adalat. Shri R.S. Khural, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Rajneesh Narula, Advocate for OPs No. 1 & 2 had made a statement that he had gone through the affidavit furnished by the Complainants, in which the Complainants had deposed that they are having separate kitchens. Keeping in view the said affidavit, the OPs shall release the remaining two gas connections within seven days and that the Complainants shall be themselves responsible for any mishappening. Taking into account the settlement reached between the parties, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. But subsequently, OPs No. 1 & 2 had gone to the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh challenging the order passed by this Forum on 20.02.2009. The Hon’ble High Court had directed the District Forum as under:- “The District Forum-II is directed to dispose of the application moved by the Petitioner for recalling of the order in accordance with law, by passing speaking order.” iv] In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the District Forum passed an order on 23.10.2009, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “…………….We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the record, it is apparent that the OPs 1 & 2 had engaged Sh. Rajneesh Narula and Ms. Rajni Narula as Counsel. On 20.02.2009, none of the Counsel (Sh. Rajneesh Narula or Ms. Rajni Narula) was present on behalf of OPs No. 1 & 2. Shri R.S. Khural appeared only as a Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri Rajneesh Narula. No authority is on the file, authorizing Sh. R.S. Khural to make any statement on behalf of parties. He is not the authorized agent of OPs No.1 & 2. In these circumstances, any statement made by Sh. R.S. Khural does not bind the OPs. So, the compromise dated 20.02.2009 is not based on the consent and compromise of the parties. Hence, the order dated 20.02.2009 is a nullity and deserves to be recalled. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Complainants that Proxy Counsel need not have any authority. He can make statement on behalf of parties and act as an Advocate as authorized by another Advocate. This argument of learned counsel for the Complainant has no force. No counsel can make any statement on behalf of any party without having been duly authorized to do so. So, the impugned order is not based on the proper consent of the parties. So, the order dated 20.02.2009 is hereby recalled and is set aside. Now, for arguments on main case, to come up on 07.12.2009.” In the light of the order dated23.10.2009, passed by this Forum, the matter was considered for arguments afresh and eventually the final arguments took place in the case on 22.01.2011. v] During the course of arguments, the contention of the Complainants was that the Complainants had got three LPG connections one in the name of Complainant No. 1 in the year 1987 and the remaining two in the names of Complainants No. 2 & 3 in the year 1996 and all these three gas connections were treated as valid connections by the OPs for a number of years. Initially, the Gas Dealer was M/s Premier Gas Service, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh and subsequently, it was M/s Sabharwal Gas Company, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. No one had ever raised any objection during the next 10-15 years and they were availing the three gas connections without any interruption or any sort of objection whatsoever from any quarter. The trouble arose only when Complainant No.1 retired from Service in 2008 and shifted to his own house in Sector 41-D, Chandigarh and he asked for transfer of gas connections from his previous residence to the new residence. Vi] The main arguments put forward by the OPs is based on an order dated 26.04.2000, passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, based on an earlier notification issued by the Department on 10th September, 2009. The relevant part of which in this case is Rule 1(a)(i)(gg) and also Clause 1(b)(i), 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.” In addition to above, OPs have also quoted another clause of the order dated 26.4.2000, as at Sr.No.4(c), which reads as under:- “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.” vii] The entire case of the OPs is based on the application of the aforesaid clauses and the contention is that the Complainants are not entitled to more than one LPG connection under the rules. Another pleading of the OPs, which is of course not a part of the aforesaid government orders, is that the Complainant No.1 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. Viii] 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 dependant 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 No. 1 is having an independent unit of his family, comprising the husband and the wife. Complainant No. 2 is also a married person and living with his wife, which constitutes the second family unit. On the same lines, Complainant No. 3 is also an adult female member, having her independent existence and means of living. She is not a dependent member on Complainant No. 1, who is her father. All said and done, the three Complainants i.e. Complainants No. 1, 2 & 3 are three independent units of the extended and large joint family, who are living in the same house. 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 three independent family units, which are a part and parcel of one joint family, operating in the same house. The question whether they are having three separate and 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. Therefore, the argument put forth by the OPs asking again and again that the Complainants were not having three separate and independent kitchens in the form of physical, walled and roofed enclosed structures made of bricks and cement, is just not tenable. Moreover, when the three LPG connections were issued in the year 1987 and 1996 respectively, such a condition was never imposed on the Complainants and the Gas Company (OPs No. 1 & 2) as well as the then Dealer (OP No.4) had liberally allowed the release of three LPG connections in the names of three persons belonging to the same family and also residing in the same house. The pleading of the Complainants in the present case is that the new house where they have now shifted is much bigger and has more space than their old house, where the Company had earlier unhesitatingly and without grudge or even a murmur allowed three gas connections. Complainants further say that OP No. 3 who is the Gas Dealer had insisted upon them to purchase new gas stoves, as well as regulators afresh, with a view to make some undue and unearned profit and this was clearly against the OPs’ own prescribed Rules. It is a well known fact that this malpractice on the part of some unscrupulous gas Dealers to insist upon the gullible consumers to buy new gas stoves and regulators etc. at exorbitant prices at the time of either taking new connections or at the time of transfer of gas connections forthwith, is widespread and there have been a number of complaints against the Dealers in this regard and in certain cases, the Gas Agencies were booked and their licenses were cancelled on that account. It is emphatically made clear that the Complainants must have suffered immensely at the hands of the OPs and especially, OP No.3, during the last three years or so, without getting any relief or redressal of their grievances at the hands of OPs. ix] As already observed, this being a very old case and relating to the year 2008, the proceedings have been going on for more than two years and during this period, the Complainants have been deprived of availing the second and third gas connections and as such, they had to contend with only one gas connection in the name of Complainant No.1. In all this process, there is no fault on the part of the Complainants and the fault lies entirely and solely with the OPs, especially OP No.3. During the entire proceedings, spread over more than two years, OP No. 3, which is the main party in the case, has remained absent and was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte. As such, there is no defence being put up on behalf of OP No. 3 at all. The only reply filed by OPs, was from OPs No. 1 and 2, which is the Gas Company itself and as usual, they had blindly defended their own Dealer as a matter of routine, without going through the entire case closely, analyzing the same and sifting the truth from falsehood and applying their mind to the suffering undergone by the Complainants. OPs No. 1 & 2 have not been able to explain as to how and why they had released three gas connections in favour of the Complainants in the year 1987 and 1996 respectively, and not only that they allowed the use of these gas connections for more than 15 to 20 years, without ever raising any objection or creating problem. The very fact that the problem arose only when there was a request from the Complainants for transferring the gas connections from one dealer to the other, clearly shows utter and callous malafides on the part of the OPs, which is writ large on the face of it. There is clearly something much more than meets the eye in the present case, and the OPs have miserably failed to explain their conduct in the case by not allowing the transfer of the gas connections from one house to the other one but located within the same city of Chandigarh. By and large, the process of transfer is a very routine procedure, which should have been allowed in general as a matter of course, without raising any objection by any one. X] The OPs have also quoted a judgment of the Madras High Court, in which it has been directed that husband and wife living in one roof can possess only one Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) connection in either of their names and not two separate connections, as held by many. In the present case, the husband (Complainant No.1) and the wife are not in possession of two separate gas connections. The sole gas connection lies in the name of husband only and there is no gas connection in the name of wife, therefore, even this judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras is not of any help to the OPs. Further, it is a matter of deep regret and concern that even though OPs No 1 & 2 happen to be one of the top most Public Sector Undertakings (Gem PSU) of Government of India, they have exhibited a totally apathetic, callous, unsympathetic and inhuman attitude towards the Complainants, specially Complainant No. 1, who is a respectable senior citizen and also himself a former Govt. employee. It is high time that this PSU rises from its deep slumber, listens to this most urgent wake up 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. 5. since the Complainants have not asked for any relief against OP No. 4 - M/s Sabharwal Gas Company, which is basically a Proforma Party in this case and further, there is also no specific allegation against them. The present complaint is, therefore, dismissed qua OP No.4. 6. 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. All the three Complainants are definitely and surely entitled to have independent LPG Gas Connections in their respective names as three separate and independent family units do exist, while they are residing in the same house. As such, the act of the OPs in depriving them of the use of such gas connections which they are 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 Complainants and against OPs No. 1 to 3. We order accordingly. 7] The OPs No.1 to 3 shall, jointly and severally, do the following in favour of the Complainants:- (i) The OPs shall release the remaining two LPG gas connections one each in favour of Complainants No. 2 and 3 respectively, forthwith, without insisting upon purchase of new gas stoves/ regulators or any other gas equipment whatsoever by the Complainants or imposing any penalty or charges under whatever name or putting up any other excuse for delaying the matter further. (ii) The OPs shall pay compensation @ Rs.10,000/- to each of Complainants No. 2 and 3 (total Rs.20,000/-) for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain for not releasing the perfectly valid gas connections in their names at the shifted residence for such a long time, thereby violating their own prescribed Rules, despite the Complainants fulfilling all the necessary requirements. (iii) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainants. 8] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay Rs.20,000/-, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.08.2008, till the date of realization, besides complying with the rest of the order as at (i) and (iii) in the foregoings. 9] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. Announced 17.01.2011 Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | , | MR. A.R BHANDARI, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
