BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.20 of 2020
Date of Instt. 20.01.2020
Date of Decision: 27.10.2022
Usha Rani wife of Manohar Lal R/o 71, Thakur Singh Colony, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Kohli Gas Service through its Prop. Near Daily Ajit, Jalandhar.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Suchi Pind, Chuggitti, Byepass, Jalandhar.
3. The Sales Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Suchi Pind, Chuggitti, Byepass, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Jatinder Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. H. S. Sachdeva, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the husband of the complainant was consumer of the OPs bearing consumer No.7948839. The husband of the complainant namely Manohar Lal died on 31.01.2019 and after his death the gas connection is being used by his wife i.e. the complainant and as such, she becomes the consumer. On 10.04.2019 the representative of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and they demanded Rs.175/- for inspection. The complainant requested them that she is not to pay such amount as she does not intend to get any inspection from them. Then the representatives/employees of OP No.1 openly told to the complainant that in case inspection is not allowed to be done and charges of inspection are not paid by the complainant, their connection will be disconnected. At that time there was no other option for the complainant except to pay Rs.175/- as inspection charges to them. The complainant is widow having no source of income requested the representative/employee of OP No.1 many times but they threatened to disconnect the gas connection and to stop the supply of gas cylinders, on account of which she was so much scared that she had to pay Rs.175/- as inspection charges. The complainant went to the office of OP No.1 and made a request to the proprietor but he flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant and told her that inspection was mandatory as per guidelines issued by OP No.2 & 3 and also threatened to stop the supply of LPG cylinder if she dared to take any action against them. There is great deficiency and negligence in services on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as pecuniary damages and special damages and Rs.175/- as inspection charges.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file this complaint. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is stopped by their own act and conduct, omission and commission to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the real facts from this Commission. The present complainant is not consumer as per the definition under section 2 (b) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties as the complainant has not made all the legal representative of her deceased husband as party to the present complaint. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the PSU OMCs by not getting the nomination changed of her deceased husband who is the actual consumer as per the records. She has mentioned in the complaint that the husband of the complainant had died on 31.01.2019 and she is still using the LPG connection on the name of her deceased husband without any intimation to the Distributor. The complainant has also got encashed the subsidy against LPG refills in the name of the deceased which is in itself cheating not only with Distributorship and PSU but also with the Government of India. The subsidy is aadhar based only and till date the complainant is still using the name and aadhar card of the consumer to get the subsidy which is itself fraudulent not only with all the OPs but also with Union of India. The complainant stands no ground as the said inspection falls under the category of mandatory inspection for ensuring the safety of LPG consumers as per the directions laid down by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India vide D. O. No.P-39014/1/86-MKT dated April 14, 1988. It is further averred that the said complaint needs to be dismissed as the charges of inspection of equipment at the house of the complainant charged by OP No.1 were in compliance of the Circular Ref:JAO/Circular dated 10.05.2016 to be read with D. O. No.P-39014/1/86-MKT dated April 14, 1988. On merits, it is admitted that the husband of the complainant is the consumer of the OP No.1 and it is also admitted that the representative of the OP visited the house of the complainant for the mandatory inspection, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OPs No.2 & 3 filed their separate joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and there has never been any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Even perusal of the complaint would reveal that no cause of action has arisen against the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint is liable to be out rightly rejected as there exists no cause of action for filing the present complaint since mandatory inspections for checking of equipments installed at the premises of the customers at periodic intervals are required to be done by LPG Gas Distributorships in line with circular dated 14.04.1998 of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG) and the charges are accordingly levied as are applicable at the time of inspection. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is not disputed that the husband of the complainant was consumer of the OP and having gas connection with consumer number 7948839 as per Ex.C-2, which is the gas passbook. As per Ex.C-1, the husband of the complainant Manohar Lal died on 31.01.2019. As per the OPs, the complainant never moved any application for the change of the name of the deceased Manohar Lal to the name of the complainant. The grudge of the complainant is that on 10.04.2019, the representative of the OP visited the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.175/- for inspection. She was informed that in case she does not pay Rs.175/- as inspection charge to them and does not get the connection inspected, her connection will be disconnected. Therefore, she had to pay Rs.175/- as inspection charges. She has proved on record the copy of the receipt Ex.C-3 which shows that on 10.04.2019 Rs.175/- were received by the OPs from the complainant as inspection charges. The complainant has alleged that the OPs have charged forcibly Rs.175/-, therefore she demanded that action be taken against them.
8. As discussed above, the complainant never requested the OPs to change the name of her husband in the record of the OPs, which is also clear from the certificate issued by OP No.1 as Ex.OP-1. The OP has also produced on record the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas Ex.OP1/2, in which it has specifically been mentioned that regular inspection of equipment installed at customer premises is required. The circular Ex.OP1/1, gives the detail of the service charges recoverable from the customers by LPG distributors and charges for issuance of DGCC books. At Sr. No.4 there is reference of Mechanic visit charges and there is also reference of mandatory inspection of domestic installation to be done by the mechanics in the house of the user of the connection. As per the notification and the circular, the inspection of the complainant’s house was done regarding the gas connection and the burner for which Rs.175/- was charged as per circular and receipt to this effect was also issued. So, there is no deficiency in service. Had the OPs received the charges forcibly, they would have never issued the receipt to the complainant, which has been proved as Ex.C-3. First of all, it is the negligence of the complainant that she had not got changed the gas connection from the name of her deceased husband to her name and secondly she refused to get the inspection of gas, which is mandatory as it is meant for safety of the consumers. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
27.10.2022 Member President
