Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/370/2015

Davinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Sharma

23 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/370/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	10/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	23/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Davinder Kumar son of Sh. Ram Kishor, resident of House No.84, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6A, Tel Bhawan, Madhya Marg, Sector 19, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  The Chandigarh Gas Agency, Plot No.9 (Near Rally Ground), Sector 25 (West), Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/Owner.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Sanjeev K. Dhiman, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant being a registered L.P.G. Consumer of Opposite Party No.2 was allotted Consumer No. 531395 against SV 1007272 dated 23.09.2009. The Complainant has been using only one gas connection in his kitchen since very beginning and was refilling the same continuously till 25.1.2015. It has been alleged that after 25.1.2015, the Opposite Party No.2 stopped the supply of gas cylinder citing the reason that there are two gas connections at the address of the Complainant. The Complainant, on the asking of Opposite Party No.2, submitted an undertaking dated 7.3.2015, that there is no other gas connection in the name of the Complainant. Even, upon inspection of the premises, by the Opposite Party No.2, it was found that there is only one gas connection. Thereafter, the Complainant made a number of rounds to the office of Opposite Party No.2, to know the status of the matter, but to no avail and he was marooned without domestic gas to fend for himself and his family comprising of his wife, two children and parents. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply by way of affidavit has pleaded that the last supply of refill of cooking gas was done on 25.1.2015 and not on 15.1.2015 as alleged. It has been asserted that there exists 5 LPG connections in different names at the address of the Complainant i.e. H.No.84, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh (Annexure O-4 to O-8). Out of these connections, 4 gas connections belongs to Complainant and his family members and the 5^th LPG connection is in the name of one Mr.Sunil Singh Tiwari at the same address of Complainant. 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. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has also taken similar pleas as were taken by the Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.

 

6.      The main arguments put forward by the Opposite Parties is that as per the instructions issued by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide its letter dated 23.09.2009, one household can possess only one LPG connection as per its notification published in the Gazette of India on 10.09.2009 and directed that this may now be enforced strictly to rule out multiple connections in any household (Annexures R-1 & R-2). 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.  

 

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:-

 

1. 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.

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd February, 2016                                           

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”