Tripura

West Tripura

CC/20/2015

Shri Swapan Banik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Tripura Natural Gas Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.L.Saha,Mr. K.Nandi, Mr. S.Datta, Mr. A.Saha, Mr.J.Paul.

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   20  of   2015

Sri Swapan Banik,
S/O- Late Ramkrishna Banik,
Prop: Janapriya Mistanna Bhandar,
P.O- Siddhi Ashram, P.S- Amtali, 
West Tripura.                     ..........Complainant.
    
             ___VERSUS___
             
Tripura Natural Gas Company Limited,
33, Office Lane, Agartala, Tripura,
P.S. West Agartala.
(Represented by its Managing Director)    ...........Opposite party.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri A. L. Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Smt. Sumi Datta,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Sri Joydeep Paul,
                      Sri Jotirmoy Das,             
                      Advocates.

For the Opposite Party        : Sri Paramartha Dutta,
                      Sri Debabrata De,
                      Sri Koushik Datta,
                      Advocates.                                           
          

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   30.03.2016

J U D G M E N T

        One Swapan Banik filed this petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is alleged by the complainant that he being a consumer had taken the natural Gas supply from the O.P., TNGCL. Time to time he used to pay the bill as given by TNGCL. He was never a defaulter. In the year, 2014 O.P. TNGCL suddenly enhanced the price of natural gas. O.P. company issued a demand notice for payment of Rs.15,773/-. Thereafter debit note was given showing the difference of amount to be paid for Rs.1,36,241/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of the O.P. this case was filed for redress. 

        O.P., TNGCL appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that TNGCL supply gas and the rate of gas is fixed by GAIL India and Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. TNGCL only distribute natural gas in Agartala and other area only getting service charges. They have nothing to do in respect of raising of price of natural gas as rate fixed by Ministry of Petroleum. 

        On the basis of rival contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the raising of gas price after lapse of 10 years be justified or not?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief in respect of deficiency of service by TNGCL?

        Both the parties produced some documentary  and oral evidence.
        Petitioner side produced the demand notice, communication, bills, demand draft, tax invoice, (All photocopies). Petitioner side also examined one witness i.e., the complainant himself. 

        O.P. on the other hand produced the correspondence between the Senior Manager, Finance and the Manager, GAIL, rules of TNGCL another correspondence also produced. O.P. TNGCL also examined one witness, O.P.W. 1, Joyjeet Chaudhury, Manager, TNGCL. 

        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS AND DECISION:
        We have gone through the correspondence, letter issued by the Ministry of petroleum and natural Gas. It is admitted fact that Ministry of Petroleum gas authorized GAIL & O.P. TNGCL to raise the rate of gas price. From the letter issued by the Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas to Chairman, Gail it is found that consumer price of the gas was renewed by the Government. In supercession of earlier orders some decision were taken. It was decided that for the public interest available gas to be supplied on subsidized rate to power and fertilizers sectors not to others. It is also decided that during the period as per recommendation and decision taken there the consumer price will be increased from 2850 /MCM to fix price 3210/MCM on average basis. For the North-East region 3200 MCM as market price will be fixed during the year 2005 to 2006 the price on the north eastern region will be pegged @ 60% of the revised price for General consumer. Thus the consumer price for north east will increase from existing 1700 MCM to 1920 MCM. The letter of the petroleum ministry dated 5th June 2006 issued by Under Secretary, Govt. of India. By that letter the APM gas price is also to be raised. Though there was 20% increase over the current APM price for the general consumer and also for the North-East consumers. Other letters addressed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas dated 31st May, 2010 is very relevant. From those letters clear picture comes out that there was rise of gas price from 2005. On the basis of which rate of gas price was increased. State Minister, Tapan Chakraborty  also wrote a letter in the Central  Govt. Minister, Ramandra Pradhan, Minister of petroleum in this regard for reduction of price. But that request letter also not considered and turned down by the Minister of petroleum and natural Gas. From all those letters it is very clear to us that gas price was increased and consumers are to pay the same. This consumer court has no authority to reduce the price as it is a policy matter of the Govt. From the debit note it is found that the gas price was demanded from 2005 to 2015. This is a monetary demand. The correspondence of ministry of petroleum and natural gas was issued in the year 2006 and 2005 but there was inordinate delay and the TNGCL, O.P. decided to take action in the year 2015 after lapse of 10 years. They demanded the revised price from 2005 to 2015. The consumer is not supposed to pay arrears bill which was beyond their knowledge. The raising of price without informing the consumer after lapse of 10 years not proper and justified at all. Monetary demand could be made within a period of 3 years only. TNGCL, O.P. without giving any proper information suddenly raised the price from 2005 and demanded the arrears. This is illegal and unfair trade practice. The consumer has the right to know the actual market price on the product and his capability in regard to payment has also be taken into consideration. It may so happen that consumer may disconnect the supply line when the price is at the upper side and not possible for him to bear the expenses. So, raising of price after lapse of 10 years appears to be improper service. TNGCL being supplier did not give proper service in this regard. He is to take care about the current market price and the information should be supplied to the consumer time to time. This was not done. So, in our considered view this raising of price from 2005 to 2011 was illegal and consumer is not bound to pay the same i.e., up to 2012, March. But after 2012, March  O.P. changes price as per instruction of ministry of petroleum and gas authority  to raise the price. Actually GAIL was supposed to raise price through TNGCL as per instruction of Petroleum Ministry. 

        This is true that the O.P. TNGCL has no authority to raise the price. It is to follow the guidelines given by the GAIL and Ministry Petroleum and Natural Gas. So, they has no fault when they raised the price as per instruction given by the GAIL following the guidelines of petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry. However, this raising of price from 2005 to March, 2012 was improper and petitioner is not under any obligation to pay the same. He is to pay the enhanced price from 1st April, 2012 as it falls within the period of 3 years. Petitioner is not dealing with power or fertilizer sector & therefore not entitled to get available APM gas supply but non APM gas supply. Thus above two points are decided. 

        In view of our findings over the two points this petition is partly allowed. Petitioner will have to pay the enhanced price from 1st April, 2012 onwards. But the payment made by him in respect of 2005 to 2011 shall not be increased and payment done is to accepted by the O.P. TNGCL is hereby directed to cancel the debit note demanded for enhanced gas price from 2005 to 31st March, 2012. He is to issue fresh debit note and realize the amount of enhanced price from April, 2012 to 2015 & thereafter. As no deficiency of service by TNGCL found nothing given as compensation to the petitioner. Thus, the case is disposed of without cost to the parties.  
                                             Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
 WEST TRIPURA.