C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/94
COMPLAINANTS : 1) Sri Krishnendu Roy,
S/o Lt. Ramoni Mohan Roy
Aurobinda Road, Bowbazar,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
Also residing under Bhandarkhola
Gram Panchayat, Vill. Kalidaha, Nutan Para,
P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
2) Smt. Mandira Roy,
W/o Sri Krishnendu Roy,
Aurobinda Road, Bowbazar,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs 1) Indane Sales Centre,
6/1, D.L. Roy Road,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
represented by one Sikha Dutta,
2) The Sr. Area Manager,
(Marketting Division)
Indane Gas,
Kolkata Area Office, 3rd Floor,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
34, Nirmal Chandra Street, Kolkata 700013
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 22nd December, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant No. 1 is a consumer under the OP No. 1 with regard to gas connection bearing No. 7341. It is his further case that his gas connection was taken originally at his village address which was subsequently transferred to his residential address at Aurobinda Road, Boubazar, Krishnagar. It is his further case that he is the owner of the brickfield situated at Kalidaha, Nutanpara, P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia, where he stays for his work purpose. Practically, he takes his breakfast, lunch and dinner there also. As there is no cooking gas, so he has to take his meal elsewhere which is a very difficult task for him. So he wrote two letters on 01.08.10 and 30.08.10 to this OP No. 1 with a request to change the address of his gas connection bearing No. 7341 from his residential address at Bowbazar, Krishnagar to Bhandarkhola, Kalidaha, Nutanpara, Ghurni. This complainant also submits that his wife, i.e., complainant No. 2 has another gas connection under the OP, bearing No. 14500 at the address Aurobindo Road, Bowbazar. After receiving his two letters dtd. 01.08.10 and 30.08.10 the OP No. 1 did not transfer the gas connection to his present address at Ghurni. Rather the OP No. 1 threatened the complainants to surrender the gas connection within 30 days failing which the OP would constrain to supply the gas to the complainants. So having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Notice was duly served upon the OP No. 1 & 2, but on receipt of notice neither the OP No. 1 nor the OP No. 2 has appeared and submitted any written version to contest the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
From the petition of complaint along with documents filed by the complainants, it is available on record that this complainant No. 1 has a gas connection bearing No. 7341 at his residential address Aurobindo Road, Bowbazar, Krishnagar. It is also available that the complainant No. 2, who is the wife of complainant No. 1 has another gas connection bearing No. 14500 at the self same address where the complainant No. 1 has the gas connection. It is the specific contention of the complainant No. 1 that the complainant No. 1 has one brickfield at Kalidaha, Nutanpara, Ghurni where he has to take his breakfast, lunch and dinner for working purpose. Therefore, he requested the OP No. 1 to transfer his gas connection from the address of Aurobindo Road, Bowbazar, to the address of his brickfield at Ghurni at which the OP declined. The OP No. 1 has not contested this case by filing any written version. The two letters issued by the complainant No. 1 on 01.08.10 and 30.08.10 are filed in this case, from which we find that the complainants have admitted that both of them are husband and wife who have two separate connections at the common address Aurobindo Road, Bowbazar, Krishnagar. The complainants have not filed any document to establish that the complainant No. 1 separately resides at the address Kalidaha, Ghurni. It is categorically stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant No. 1 is to stay at his brickfield from early morning to first half of night for his work purpose. But no where it is stated in the petition of complaint that he at present resides at the address of the brickfield and does not reside at all at his previous address at Bowbazar, Krishnagar with his wife. Besides this from one document filed by the complainant it is available that the OP No. 1 intimated him by serving a letter, inter alia, stating “Notwithstanding what is stated herein we would also like to state that the said possession of more than one connection in the household is in violation of the LP Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 read with the Notification of Amendment dated September 10, 2009 of the same order. It is also notified that for those households having more than one LPG connection, all the other connections shall be blocked and in the event they are not surrendered within a period of 30 days, we will be constrained to supply of the second connection also.”
On a careful perusal of this notice of the OP No. 1 we find that there is a specific direction of the Indane Gas Authority that at one address there cannot be two connections to their family. It is the admitted case that the complainant No. 1 & 2, being the husband and wife reside at the same address and at the same time they enjoy two LPG gas connections which is the violation of the LPG Gas Regulation Act, 2000 read with Notification of Amendment dated September 10, 2009. In order to avoid this order of the LPG gas the complainants filed this case with a prayer to transfer the gas connection of the complainant No. 1 from his residential address to the brickfield address. We have already discussed that there is no documentary evidence on record that the complainant No. 1 at present resides at Ghurni where his brickfield is situated.
Therefore, considering the facts of this case along with the documents filed by the complainants and after hearing the submission of the complainant No. 1, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove and establish their case. So they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/94 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
