JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

            This complaint case has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs in the matter of transfer of his gas connection from one distributor to another.

            The Complainant being the principal of an Anglo Indian School,  namely, Elias Meyer F.S and Talmud Torah is a consumer of M/s Kitchen Queen . Due to shifting of his address to Deshbandhu Nagar , Saha Para , Baguiati , Kolkata -700 059, as per norms of IOCL he was required  to take prior written permission of a distributor of his new area for transfer of connection and he got such permission as per rules . He submitted document as proof of address . The old domestic gas consumer card (DGCC) and the transfer termination voucher was prepared and transferred to M/s. Uttarayan Gas Service (UGS) through the server ( Internet) to the new Distributor who is supposed to sanction the new DGCC. An electric bill as proof of address was submitted to UGS but he was told that ration card is mandatory and in its absence an affidavit from the Notary had to be submitted. The managing staff of UGS insulted the wife of the Complainant , when she went to the office of the OP No.2 and claimed that an electric bill is one of the options that could be submitted as proof of address. However, an affidavit was filed . But his family was finding it difficult to prepare food as both the gas cylinders were empty as they had not booked a new cylinder for 3 months. The petitioner was under great stress and agony for non-availability of cooking gas for his family. His old mother suffered a lot as she could not get cooked food and hot water for bath etc. He sent an appeal to IOCL but there was no response . He met the Chief Area Manager , Mr. V.K. Mathur on 29^th January 2014 and after his intervention a supply of one cylinder on 03.02.14 was received. The Complainant applied under the Right to Information Act to know for certain if ration card is mandatory as proof of address.  IOCL replied that any of the documents given in the list on page 2 of the Consumer Information Brochure is mandatory which proved that Complainant was right from the beginning. Allegedly the consumer was harassed  by the distributor with the support of IOCL.  It has been alleged that the Complainant being a talented person , his creative talent was seriously damaged . His mental agony has been enhanced as the service provider failed to provide service and indulged in negligence causing loss to the Complainant on account of their obstructions to the Complainant’s fundamental right to practice his profession or occupation and the Complainant could not perform his duty properly due to the harassment in the hands of the  OPs. Alleging deficiency in service against the OPs , the Complainant prayed for direction upon the OPs for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment of a whole family and also for payment of compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-  for adversely affecting the mental and physical health of the petitioner and also for damaging his intellectual property , apart from payment of litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- .

            The OPs have appeared through their Ld. Advocates and filed W.V. separately .

            OP No. 1 in their W.V. submitted that application for new gas connection is made by the Consumer at the office of the distributor who allots the connection serially after verifying all relevant papers and documents in connection with the proof of identity and proof of residence of the applicant. The company, i.e., OP No.1 does not control the allotment of new connection . The OP No.1 denied all allegations except those which are matters of record. There was no harassment from their side . They are  also not responsible for any delay in allotment of new connection . However, as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the Chief Area Manager, he instantly directed the OP No. 2 to release the connection the next day. It was  also emphasized that the distributorship agreement entered into by and between the OP No.1 and the OP No. 2 provides that the agreement is on principal to principal basis as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1994 (1) Supreme Court Cases Page 397 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Consumer Protection Council , Kerala and Anr.) The OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them .

            In their W.V. filed before the Ld. Forum below  OP No. 2 denied all allegations except those which are matters of record. It was submitted that the Complainant himself has admitted the fact that as per norms prior written permission of the distributor of the new area is required for transfer of connection and such permission can only be granted after the distributor is fully satisfied that the applicant truly resides under its area of distributorship. The OP is legally duty bound to fulfill the necessary formalities and accordingly the Complainant was asked to comply with the norms of submitting his proof of residence to the satisfaction of the OP. None of the employees of the OP shouted at the Complainant’s wife as alleged. There was no endeavour to harass the Complainant . It was further asserted that the OP No.2 was not at all responsible for any crisis faced by the family of the Complainant.  The OP is not responsible for any imaginary loss and / or damage and / or difficulty faced by the Complainant. The domestic gas cylinder was promptly issued and duly delivered to the Complainant on 01.02.2014 after completion of all formalities and preparation of new domestic gas consumer card (DGCC) on 30.01.14 . There is no cause of action whatsoever and the Complainant is not entitled to any relief . It has again been submitted that the petition is replete with advertisement of the Complainant’s creativity and he has tried to beat his own drum by trying to impress upon this Forum his scholastic aptitude which has nothing to do with the merit of the instant case. Further, the OP being a gas distributor cannot be held for breach of constitutional right of the Complainant. Alleging that the complaint has been filed unnecessarily to vex the OP and for making illegal and wrongful gain , the OP asserted that the complaint  should be dismissed.

            The Complainant submitted his evidence in support of his averments but the OPs neither submitted any evidence nor participated in the hearing of the complaint . The Complainant submitted his BNA and his Ld. Advocate was heard ex parte . Ld. Advocate for the Complainant referred to the points made in the written notes of argument and prayed for direction upon the OPs as stated in the petition of complaint.

            The points for consideration are as follows:

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP / OPs ?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

      It is by virtue of his holding a domestic gas consumer card  that the Complainant had to approach the distributor of his area for transfer of his connection from the old area pertaining to his residence to the new area where the transfer of connection was sought for. He is  a consumer under the OPs ,  as he is availing gas service for consideration from the OPs.  As such, the Complainant is a consumer for the purpose of adjudication of the instant complaint.

         We take up the other two points together for the sake of brevity and decision.

         The Complainant having shifted his residence to a new area which was outside the jurisdiction of the old gas distributor was in need of applying to the gas distributor of his area for effecting the domestic gas consumer card connection. He was aware that a proof of his new residence would be required and as such he through his wife forwarded the copy of the  electricity bill of his new residence to the distributor of his new area, but he was asked to submit an affidavit as substitute for his ration card for the purpose of having his gas consumer card transferred to the distributor of the new area. He ascertained from the office of the OP No.1  through RTI Act that any of the documents as mentioned in the consumer information sheet (Page -2) as proof of address is mandatory . Such documents included the electricity bill but the said document was not accepted by the office staff of the distributor / OP No.2 and affidavit was asked for as a substitute for the ration card.  The affidavit was filed enclosing there with the copy of electricity bill as a proof of residence . The TTV was prepared on 7^th January 2014 by the Kitchen Queen being the old distributor and transferred to UGS being the new distributor .  But as there was an undue delay in effecting the transfer of the connection  the Complainant had to suffer a lot  and failed to perform his duty as a principal due to non-availability of the gas at home. Cooking of food and other necessary use was hampered in the absence of gas  in the house of the Complainant.  Though the Complainant tried on 20^th , 22^nd  , 27^th and 28^th for communicating the grievance against OP No.2 to the OP No.1 , no response was received . Ultimately he met the Chief Area Manager on 29^th January 2014 and described his grievance to him . The matter was sorted out by his  intervention .

            The fact goes that the Complainant was harassed by the office of the OP No.2 in the matter of transfer of his gas connection for such reason as could not be apprehended. Such act on the part of the OP No.2 caused mental harassment to the Complainant and inconvenience to the members of his family.

            It is, however, not established with cogent evidence how he suffered such quantum of loss as described in his petition of complaint. The total compensation has been  estimated at Rs. 20 lakh for mental harassment of the whole family together with compensation for his intellectual property. It has been alleged that as  he could not concentrate in his literary work , he was deprived of royalty from the publication of his next book on which he was working but which he could not publish for lack of concentration , the issue of effecting the new gas connection having bothered him too much. It is indeed a matter of hypothetical presentation that his claim for compensation  for not having his gas connection transferred  in his house would be such a big amount i.e., Rs. 20 lakh . We are of the considered view that the compensation may be quantified at Rs. 5,000/- for the undue harassment and deficiency in service particularly on the part of the OP No.2. There is no cogent proof in substantiation of the allegation about deficiency in service against OP No. 1 . The complaint ,therefore, succeeds in part. Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part . OP No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 40 days from the date of this order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 8% on the entire decretal amount from the date of this order. The Complainant shall be at liberty to put the order on execution as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.