BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 155/2008

Dated : 17.08.2009

Complainant:

M. Thajudeen, Poikayil Veedu, Vadasserikonam P.O, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Sukumara Kurup)

Opposite party:

The Manager, M.S. Gas, Jaya Gas Agency, Maithanam, Varkala.

(By adv. V. Muraleedharan Pillai)

This O.P having been heard on 30.07.2009, the Forum on 17.08.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant in this case, Mr. Thajudeen, applied for a gas connection to the opposite party on 07.11.2007. The opposite party agreed to give gas connection within 3 months and the opposite party affixed their seal in the ration card of the complainant. In accordance with that assurance the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.03.2008. The opposite party stated that in order to get the gas connection, the complainant should pay Rs. 3,300/- to the opposite party towards the price of the gas stove also. The complainant stated that he has a gas stove. For that reason he does not want to purchase another gas stove from the opposite party. Then the opposite party told that the connection will be allowed only after enquiry. When the opposite party came to the house of the complainant for enquiry, they saw there was a gas connection in his kitchen. The complainant stated that it was his sister's gas connection and at that time his sister was in his house in connection with her delivery and the said connection was her matrimonial house's gas connection. For that reason the opposite parties refused to give gas connection to the complainant. Aggrieved by that decision of the opposite party, the complainant made request to the Area Manager of Indane Mr. Ramachandran and he ordered the opposite party to give gas connection to the complainant. For that purpose, the complainant approached the opposite party several times. But they did not turn up to give connection to the complainant till date. The act of the opposite party caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

Opposite party filed version in this case contending the case of the complainant. They stated that opposite party is only an agent of Indian Oil Corporation. Since the Indian Oil Corporation is not a party in this case, the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The opposite party admitted that the complainant approached them for gas connection. As per the opposite party there is some rules and regulations to give the connection. After fulfilling the formal proceedings only, they will issue gas connection on the basis of seniority. They also stated that they never insisted the complainant to purchase gas stove from them. The opposite party refused the application of the complainant after due enquiry. At the time of enquiry the opposite party saw that there was a gas connection of the Indian Oil Corporation and the wife of the complainant admitted that the gas connection was theirs and she signed the inspection form. As per the rules and regulations, if there is a gas connection, another connection is not allowable in the same house. And the opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the gas connection seen in his house was his sister's. The opposite party stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service from their part.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. The opposite party produced 2 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. D1 and D2. They have no oral evidence. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the opposite party cross examined the complainant.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant in this case produced 6 documents and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the copy of ration card No. 1104107050 which belongs to the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of registration receipt dated 07.11.2007. This document is the evidence that the complainant had booked the gas connection on 07.11.2007. Ext. P3 is the intimation letter issued by the opposite party dated 13.03.2008 intimating the complainant to visit the opposite party within 60 days to avail Indane connection. The Deputy Manager (LPG) Sales noted in Ext. P3 document that the date revalidated upto 30.06.2008 and gave instructions to the opposite party to carry out inspection at the residence of the complainant once again. Ext. P4 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated 24.09.2008 which published the news regarding the unfair trade practices of gas agencies in Varkala. Ext. P5 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated 27.09.2008 which published the news that the BJP protested the gas agencies in Varkala. Ext. P6 is the report of the Taluk Supply Officer. In this document the Supply Officer reported that as per their office records the ration card No. 1104056662 is in the name of Umaiba and also he reported that there was no LPG Connection in that ration card holder.

The documents produced by the opposite party were marked as Ext. D1 and D2. Ext. D1 is the copy of general guidelines and operating procedure for distributors of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Ext. D2 is the copy of pre-delivery certificate dated 07.05.2008. That document was signed by Fuseela. M and noted LPG connection of IOC exists in the house already. Name of customer is seen Thajudeen.

In this case the opposite party argued that at the time of inspection they have seen a LPG Gas connection in the complainant's house. For that reason they rejected the application of the complainant. As per Ext. D2 the regulator number of the connection is seen as “A 250090”, the connection is that of Indian Oil Corporation. At the time of argument we have directed the counsel for the opposite party to produce the details of the regulator number seen in Ext. D2 and for whom it has been issued. But the opposite party did not turn up to produce the name or address of the customer. If that connection is complainant's connection, it is the duty of the opposite party to produce that to contend this case. From the available documents and evidences of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant has no gas connection in his house. Hence he is eligible to get a LPG Connection from the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to give gas connection as per the application filed by the complainant on 07.11.2007 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. No costs and compensation are allowed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of August 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 155/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - M. Thajudeen

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of ration card No. 1104107050

P2 - Copy of Indane Customer Registration Slip dated 07.11.07

P3 - Copy of intimation letter dated 13.03.2008 issued by the

opposite party

P4 - Malayala Manorama daily dated 24.09.2008

P5 - Malayala Manorama daily dated 27.09.2008.

P6 - Copy of report dated 22.06.2009 issued by Chirayinkil

Taluk Supply Officer.

P7 - Copy of declaration of ration card No. 1104056662

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of general guidelines& operating procedures for distributors of I.O.C.

D2 - Copy of pre-delivery certificate dated 07.05.2008.

PRESIDENT