Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/355/2022

Sri Magai Gas Agency 29 New Street Mannargudi 614 001 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kandasamy 4/61 Vettikadu Village Mannargudi Taluk Thiruvarur District - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravikumar

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

  BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                                   Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                      MEMBER

     

COMMON ORDER IN

F.A.NO.355/2022, FA.NO.367/2022 AND FA.NO.403/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.7/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvarur)

 

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 

 

FA.NO.355/2022 

 

Sri Mangai Gas Agency

29, New Street                                                                M/s. T. Ravikumar

Mannargudi – 614 001                                                           Counsel for

Rep. by its Proprietor                                              Appellant / 2^nd opposite party

 

                   Vs.

 

1.       Kandasamy

          S/o. Sivanandam

          4/61, Vettikadu Village                                          M/s. C. Santhosh Kumar       Moovasanallur, Mannargudi Taluk                                Counsel for

          Thiruvarur District                                          1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       Rukmani Gas Agency

          10B, 3^rd Street

          Mannargudi – 614 001                                      M/. V. Balaji, Counsel for                             

          Rep. by its Proprietor                                  Counsel for R2/1^st Opposite party            

3.       Rajesh

Senior Area Manager

Indane Area Office

Indian Oil Corporation

2^nd Floor, B-35, Sastri Road                               

Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli- 620 018                       

 

4.       Indian Oil Corporation

Indian Oil Bhavan

139, Uttamar Gandhi Salai                              M/s. P.S. Sivasubramaniam                           

Chennai – 600 034                                          Counsel for R3 & R4

Rep. by its Manager                       3 & 4 Respondents /  3 &4 Opposite parties

FA.NO.367/2022

 

1.       Rajesh

Senior Area Manager

Indane Area Office

Indian Oil Corporation

2^nd Floor, B-35, Sastri Road

Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli- 38

 

2.       The Manager

Indian Oil Corporation

Indian Oil Bhavan

139, Mahatma Gandhi Salai                          M/s. P.S. Sivasubramaniam

Nungambakkam High Road                                    Counsel for

Chennai – 600 034                                  Appellants/ 3 & 4 Opposite parties

 

          Vs.

 

1.       Kandasamy

          S/o. Sivanandam

          4/61, Vettikadu Village                                       M/s. C.Santhosh Kumar

          Moovasanallur, Mannargudi Taluk                                Counsel for

          Thiruvarur District                                        1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       The Proprietor

Rukmani Gas Agency

          10B, 3^rd Street

          Mannargudi  Taluk– 614 001                                      M/s. V. Balaji         

          Thiruvarur District                                                 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Opp.party

 

 3.      The Proprietor

Sri Mangai Gas Agency

30/12, Balakrishna Nagar                                  M/s. T. Ravikumar

Mannargudi Taluk                                                  Counsel for

Thiruvarur District                                  3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite Party

 

 

FA.No.403/2022

 

Rukmani Gas Agency

10B, 3^rd Street                                                             M/s. V.Balaji

Mannargudi – 614 001                                                  Counsel for

Rep. by its Proprietor                                          Appellant/ 1^st Opposite party

 

          Vs.

 

1.       Kandasamy

          S/o. Sivanandam

          4/61, Vettikadu Village                                       M/s. C.Santhosh Kumar

          Moovasanallur, Mannargudi Taluk                            Counsel for

          Thiruvarur District                                          1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       Sri Mangai Gas Agency

29, New Street                                              M/s. T. Ravikumar, Counsel for

Mannargudi – 614 001                                    2^nd Respondent /2^nd Opp. party

 

3.       Rajesh

Senior Area Manager

Indane Area Office

Indian Oil Corporation

2^nd Floor, B-35, Sastri Road

Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli- 620 018

 

4.       Indian Oil Corporation

Indian Oil Bhavan

139, Uttamar Gandhi Salai                            M/s. P.S.Sivasubramaniam   

Chennai – 600 034                                                 Counsel for

Rep. by its Manager                         3 & 4 Respondents /3 &4 Opposite parties

 

          The 1^st Respondent in all the appeals, as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, these appeals have been preferred by the opposite parties viz. FA.No.355/2022 by the 2^nd opposite party, FA.No.367/2022 by the 3 & 4^th opposite parties, and FA.No.403/2022 by the 1^st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.30.6.2022 in CC.No.7/2014.

 

          These appeals coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of  2^nd opposite party and the complainant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following common order:

 

JUSTICE   R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   (Open court)

 

1.       These appeals have been filed by the appellants viz. 2^nd opposite party in FA.No.355/2022, and by the 3 & 4^th opposite parties in, FA.No.367/2022 by the 1^st opposite party in FA.No.403/2022, as against the order passed by the District Commission, Thiruvarur in CC.No.7/2014 vide order dt.30.6.2022.

 

2.       Since the issue involved in all the appeals, and the parties are one and the same, these appeals have been heard together, and are disposed of by way of a common order. 

 

3.       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed in the original complaints filed before the District Commission.

 

4.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issues involved in the appeal are as follows:

          The complainant is the customer of the 1^st opposite party/ Gas Agency viz. M/s.Rukmani Gas Agency, Mannargudi since 2004, vide consumer No.24164.  The complainant was getting cylinder supply without any problem from the 1^st opposite party till 2012.  On 20.10.2012, when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to register for the supply of gas cylinder, for the month of October 2012, he was informed by the 1^st opposite party, that his service connection was terminated and transferred to the 2^nd opposite party gas agency viz. M/s. Mangai Gas Agency, Mannargudi, under the transfer termination No.3147890000047.  But there was no prior intimation to the complainant for transferring the service from the 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party.  When the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party, he pointed out his finger on the 1^st opposite party.  Thus the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have made the complainant to run from pillar to post.  Hence on 9.3.2013, the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties, but there was no response from them.  Again the complainant sent another notice on 14.6.2013 through his counsel, for which the 1^st opposite party sent reply on 22.6.2013, stating that only on the instruction given by the 3^rd opposite party, they have transferred the connection, and since already several months have lapsed, the complainant had to renew the connection afresh.  Because of the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties 1 & 2, the complainant was forced to renew his connection.  Hence on 10.7.2013, the complainant sent notice to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  Though notice was received by the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties, no reply was sent by them.  When the complainant sought for certain particulars from the 4^th opposite party under RTI Act, for the query No.15, the 4^th opposite party had clearly stated that before transferring the service connection, prior intimation should be sent to the complainant.  But no intimation was received by the complainant in this regard, prior to the transfer.  Thus all the opposite parties are pointing out their fingers on each other by shirking their responsibility, which put the complainant to mental agony.  Hence he filed the complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to provide service connection to the complainant by anyone of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, and to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. 

 

 

5.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the 1^st opposite party as follows:

 

          There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   If at all there is any negligence, the complainant has to seek his remedy only from the 4^th opposite party, who has failed to send prior intimation.  Only after the complainant had affixed his signature in the transfer form,  the transfer of his gas connection was effected.  This fact was suppressed by the complainant in the complaint.  Once the transfer is effected the complainant has to approach only the 2^nd opposite party, infact only on the instruction given by the Indian Oil Corporation, transfer was effected   for 150 customers, and the complainant is one among them.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

6.       The 2 to 4 opposite parties were set exparte before the District Commission.

 

7.       In the complaint filed by the complainant in CC.No.7/2014, originally an exparte order had been passed by the District Commission on 30.3.2016,  since all the opposite parties have remained absent and were set exparte.  Aggrieved over the said order, an appeal had been preferred by the 1^st opposite party, before this commission in FA.No.8/2017.  In the said appeal, an order had been passed on 30.12.2021, by setting aside the order dt.30.3.2016 and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.  In the said appeal 2^nd opposite party remained absent.  3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have appeared through counsel.  While remanding back the matter to the District Commission, in the said appeal, the parties were directed to appear before the District Commission on 9.3.2022, and on the said date they were also directed to file their respective written versions, proof affidavits and documents. 

 

8.       While so, the matter was again taken up for consideration by the District Commission, as per the order of this commission.  But except the 1^st opposite party,  2 to 4 opposite parties have remained absent before the District Commission again.  Therefore, by giving opportunity to the 1^st opposite party, again the order impugned dt.30.6.2022 had been passed by the District Commission by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the  1 to 4 opposite parties, and had directed  the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to effect the service connection to the complainant by any of the 1^st or 2^nd opposite parties, and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally were directed to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of money, and Rs.100000/- towards deficiency in service alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present three appeals are filed by the opposite parties 1 to 4. 

 

9.       Before this commission, the only submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant is that he was not informed prior to the transfer.

  But, the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, prior intimation to the complainant should be sent by the 4^th opposite party only, and not by the 1^st opposite party. Moreover,   the prior intimation about the transfer was published in the local news paper.  Since the publication was made in a very small column, probably the complainant might not have noticed the same.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party cannot be find fault with that.  Once the transfer is effected, thereafter the 1^st opposite party cannot send cylinder to the concern customer.  But without considering all these aspects, the District Commission has directed the 1^st opposite party also to pay compensation.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

10.     The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that only after receiving the order from the District Commission, this opposite party came to know about the details.  The 2^nd opposite party is willing to give gas connection to the complainant, on production of necessary proof.   Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

11.     The learned counsel for the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties would contend that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have rendered deficiency in their service by not following the rules laid down by the 4^th opposite party , before transferring the service connection.  As seen from Ex.B2, filed by the 1^st opposite party, 500 consumers who were receiving the cylinders from the godown alone were ordered to be transferred to 2^nd opposite party.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

12.     We have carefully heard the submission on either side, and gone through the materials placed on record. 

13.     Having considered the submissions made, we are of the opinion that once the transfer of the cylinder is ordered to be effected, questioning the transfer does not arise.  Moreover, the 1^st opposite party would submit that giving prior intimation is not the duty of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party had submitted that they had transferred the service connection to the 2^nd opposite party, only as per the direction of the 4^th opposite party.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party had intimated orally and transferred more than 100 consumers to the 2^nd opposite party agency.  Though a written notice need not be sent, the 1^st opposite party informed all the customers, for whom they have effected transfer, and all other customers have not raised any objection with regard to the transfer of cylinder.  Therefore, it is the duty of the 2^nd opposite party to deliver the gas cylinder to the complainant, when the complainant approached them.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party,   as such the question of fixing the liability on the part of the 1^st opposite party does not arise.  Therefore, we hold that the findings of the District Commission, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party is not justifiable, and the complaint against the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

 

14.     The opposite parties 2 to 4 prays for setting aside the order impugned, and remanding back the matter to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  In this connection it is to be noted that on the appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in FA.No.8/2017, the matter was already remanded back to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  Though the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties appeared before this commission in the said appeal, they have not preferred to appear before the District Commission to put forth their defence.  Therefore, for the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties 2 to 4, again and again the matter cannot be remanded back.  Considering the lethargic attitude of the 2 to 4 opposite parties in not appearing before the District Commission to put forth their defence even after remand, would make this commission to infer that they have no defence.  Therefore, every time after passing order, preferring an appeal, and praying for remand or setting aside the order is not a genuine attitude, and this shows only a delaying tactics without valid defence.  Accodingly, we are not inclined to remand back the matter.

 

15.     Eventhough, we are of the considered opinion that for the deficiency committed by the 2 to 4 opposite parties, awarding a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation (Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony + Rs.1,00,000/- as additional compensation) seems to be on the higher side.  Therefore, we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, which is directed to be paid alongwith interest @9% p.a.,

 

16.     In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/ 1^st opposite party in FA.No.403/2022 is allowed, and the complaint against the 1^st opposite party in CC.No.7/2014 is dismissed. 

          The appeals filed by the 2^nd opposite party in FA.No.355/2022 and by the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties in FA.No.367/2022 are allowed in part, by modifying the order of the District Commission in CC.No.7/2014 dt.30.6.2022, by reducing the compensation to Rs.1 lakh, instead of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-), which shall be paid alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realisation.  Rest of the order is hereby confirmed as against the 2 to 4 opposite parties.  There is no order as to cost in the appeal.

           

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                           R. SUBBIAH

           MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT