By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The grievance of the complainant is that first opposite party refused to provide her domestic cooking gas connection without purchasing a gas stove.

2. Facts:-

In May, 2010 there was release of new connections under first opposite party who is the dealer/agency of HPCL. These new connections were given under a scheme in which there was liberalization of conditions for obtaining gas connection. On 26-5-2010 the complainant waited in the queue and obtained token issued by first opposite party for obtaining gas connection. She was asked to come on 29-5-2010 for getting the connection. It is her case that when she approached first opposite party on 29-5-2010 with the application for connection she was told by first opposite party that the connection will be given only to those who purchase gas stove. She already had a stove and there was no need for her to purchase a new stove. Immediately she went to the Taluk supply office and reported the matter to the concerned officer. The supply officer telephoned to the agency. As per instruction of supply officer she again approached first opposite party. Her application was accepted and was told to remit Rs.200/- towards inspection charges of the stove. She remitted the amount for which first opposite party issued a receipt. Even after two months no one came to inspect the stove and there was no response from first opposite party. She approached first opposite party again. Then a person came and inspected the stove at her residence. After a week she was asked to come to the agency. When she went, first opposite party told her that connection cannot be given to her. Complainant again approached the Taluk Supply Officer and upon his instructions submitted a written complaint to the District Supply Officer. She was told that her complaint would be entertained in the Open Forum conducted in the District. The complaint was thus taken up on 18-12-2010 in the Open Forum. In the presence of A.D.M., District Supply Officer and Officer of HPCL it was ordered to give connection to the complainant the next week itself. On 22-12-2010 the complainant again went to the agency. Opposite party refused to give her connection and told the complainant that she can give complaints anywhere she wants. She then asked opposite party to give it in writing. Opposite party refused. It is stated by her that those who applied for gas connection along with her were given gas connection very soon as they had purchased gas stove. Her neighbor who applied for connection on the same day and had purchased gas stove received connection on 18-6-2010 and the consumer number is 630156. Hence this complaint seeking a prayer to direct opposite party to give her connection and also for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards hardships and mental agony suffered by her.

3. First opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed written version. It is admitted that complainant came on 26-5-2010 to avail gas connection. It is also admitted that she was given a token on the same day and was asked to come on 29-5-2010. Opposite party denies having stated on 29-5-2010 that only those who purchase gas stove would be given connection. The complainant had stated in her application as well as in the affidavit submitted along with the application that she already has a gas stove. In cases where applicants already possess a gas stove, the stove has to be inspected by persons from the agency and only after satisfying the quality of the stove the gas connection can be provided. Opposite party had told the complainant that connection cannot be given without inspecting the stove. There was no compulsion to purchase stove. This was misunderstood by the complainant and she complained to the Taluk Supply Officer. The officer inquired at the agency and came to understand the real facts. That as per instruction of Taluk Supply Officer the complainant then remitted Rs.200/- towards stove inspection charges. A person from the agency inspected the stove at the residence of the complainant. This person reported back to the agency that the house of the complainant is 11-12 KM away from the agency and that within a distance of 7KM from the house of the complainant there is another agency and that complainant should be advised to take connection from that agency. Later, when the complainant came to the agency she was told to take connection from the nearby agency and also informed her that there is technical difficulty to provide her gas connection from opposite party agency. That this is because there is oral instructions from the company that the consumer should take connection from the nearest agency. Consumer who wishes to take connection from an agency which is distant should provide reasons in writing for taking connection from distant agency and not opting the nearest agency. The complainant did not give any reasons in writing. On 18-12-2010 she preferred complaint to the authorities and this complaint had come up for discussion in the Open Forum. Opposite party had not received the copy of that complaint prior to the discussions and so was not able to submit proper reasons before the open forum. It is admitted that in the Open Forum there was a direction to give connection to the complainant soon. On 22-12-2010 the complainant again came to the agency. Only on that day while going through her file it was noticed that the person who inspected the stove had reported that there is another agency 7KM away from the house of the complainant and that complainant ought to take connection from that agency. Complainant was informed about this and also asked her to give reasons in writing as to why she is not taking connection from the nearest agency. That complainant misunderstood this and threatened that she would give complaint to the District Collector. The statement of the complainant that her neighbor (Cons.No.630156) was given gas connection on purchase of gas stove is made only due to misunderstanding. The consumer with connection number 630156 did not possess gas stove and a stove was purchased along with connection. So there was no necessity to go to the house of that consumer for inspecting the stove. So opposite party was not aware whether the house of that consumer was near to the other agency which is within 7 KM. Therefore connection was given. It is further submitted that after receiving copy of this complaint from the Forum as per directions of second opposite party, a letter was issued to the complainant on 19-01-2011 stating that first opposite party is willing to provide gas connection to the complainant. But complainant has not approached so far. That the complaint is filed on misunderstandings and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

4. Notice was issued to second opposite party by registered post. It was served on second opposite party. But second opposite party was absent and was set exparte on 07-02-2011.

5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 marked for her. Counter affidavit filed by opposite party and Ext.B1 to B4 marked for opposite party.

6. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service?

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

7. Point (i):-

In the version as well as during the pendency of the case it was submitted that opposite parties are willing to provide gas connection. The complainant who appeared and contested the case in person submitted that she had to suffer much hardships and wanted to proceed with the litigation, she is not satisfied at present with the mere relief of receiving connection.

8. The main allegation raised by the complainant is that opposite party refused to provide her gas connection without purchasing a gas stove.

'Schedule I of 'The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 speaks about the prohibited activities. The first in this list is 'Forced sale of Stove/Hotplates to consumers'.Clause3(4) of this Order provides that 'No distributer of a government oil company or parallel marketer, as the case may be, shall commit or cause to commit any of the activities prohibited herein including those specified in Schedule I'.

9. The law prohibits coercion in any manner to purchase gas stove and hot plates. Refusal to give connection without purchasing a gas stove or releasing connection only if a stove is purchased is nothing but coercive bargaining. When the dealer creates such situations consumers are forced to purchase gas stove.

10. The complaint is resisted by opposite party stating that opposite party had not forced in any manner to purchase gas stove, but had only told the complainant that the stove has to be inspected before connection can be given. To substantiate this contention opposite party has produced Ext.B2 which is the collection details of hot plate inspection charges. In Ext.B2 it is seen that complainant has remitted Rs.200/- on 29-5-2010 towards inspection charges. It is sworn by opposite party in para 16 of the counter affidavit that 35 applicants including the complainant who submitted application for connection from 01-5-2010 to 30-6-2010 had their own stoves. After inspecting the stoves, all 34 of these applicants have been provided with gas connection. This is countered by the complainant who submits that there was much delay in conducing stove inspection and that even after stove inspection opposite party refused to provide connection. The inspection charges were collected on 29-5-2010 but inspection was conducted only on 10-7-2010. Opposite party has not offered any plausible explanation for the delay. Even if we brush aside this delay as due to some inconveniences at office of opposite party or time taken as per priority etc. we are not able to affix much appreciation to the act of opposite party in not providing the connection immediately after the stove inspection.

11. The reason put forward by opposite party in not providing the connection after the stove inspection is that the person who inspected the stove had reported that there is another agency within 7 KM of the house of the complainant and that complainant should be advised to take connection from that agency. Opposite party does not state the name of such agency. We cannot be unmindful to the strain and wait one has to face in our State to obtain a gas connection. In the instant case, after waiting in the queue she obtained token for connection. She remitted the stove inspection charges. After such wait, and after collecting the stove inspection charges can the consumer simply be asked to approach another agency and re do the whole exercise? What if she has to pay the stove inspection charges again? Opposite party has no case that the okay report of stove inspection was handed over to the complainant so that a further inspection at any other agency can be avoided. So also there is no documentary evidence to show that after stove inspection opposite party informed the complainant the reason for refusal to give connection. When opposite party contends to have denied the connection on the ground that complainant is residing within 7 KM of another agency and that she should apply to that agency, then opposite party ought to have informed this to the complainant in writing. Instead it is contended by opposite party that complainant did not submit in writing any reasons for not taking the connection from that other agency and therefore she was not given connection. The situation also gives rise to a further question as to whether the ground put forward by opposite party for denying connection is valid or not. The complainant submits that her neighbor who applied on the same day was given connection. That there are numerous persons residing nearby who are consumers for domestic gas under first opposite party and that the vehicle of first opposite party is supplying gas in this area. These facts are not denied by opposite party. But the contention raised is that the consumer No.630156 purchased a gas stove and so there was no need to go that consumer's residence. That therefore opposite party was not aware whether that consumer is also residing within 7 KM of the other agency. We are not able to affix any appreciation to this contention. These submissions on the part of opposite party, in our view, are futile attempts to wriggle out of the responsibility.

12. When she failed to get connection even after stove inspection, the complainant preferred a complaint to the concerned authorities. This complaint was taken up for consideration on 18-12-2010 in the Open Forum conducted by the authorities. Ext.A1 is the copy of the order dated 14.01.2011 passed in Open Forum. The relevent portion is reproduced as under:-

"സൂചന പ്രകാരം താങ്കളുടെ പരാതിയില്‍ താഴെ പറയുന്ന പ്രകാരം നടപടികള്‍ സ്വീകരിച്ചതായി അറിയിക്കുന്നു.

പരാതിക്കാരിക്ക് ഒരാഴചക്കകം കണക്ഷന്‍ നല്‍കി റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട് നല്‍കാന്‍‍ ഏജന്‍സിക്ക് നിര്‍ദ്ദേശം നല്‍കി.

സ്റ്റൗ വാങ്ങാന്‍ നിര്‍ബന്ധിക്കുകയും പരിശോധനാ ഫീസ് വാങ്ങിയതിന് ശേഷം കണക്ഷന്‍ നിഷേധിക്കുന്നത് കുറ്റകരമായതിനാല്‍ ഏജന്‍സിക്കെതിരെ നടപടികള്‍ സ്വീകരിക്കാന്‍ HPC-ക്ക് നിര്‍ദ്ദേശം നല്‍കി.”

13. It is clear that though opposite party was directed in the open forum on 18-12-2010 to give connection to the complainant, but still opposite party did not act accordingly. The contention put forward by opposite party regarding the order passed by open forum is of notable interest. In para 5 of the counter affidavit opposite party affirms that on 18-12-2010 when the complaint was taken up in open forum, opposite party could not put forward the reasons for not giving connection as opposite party had not received copy of complaint prior to the discussion. But it is admitted by opposite party that there was direction in the open forum to give connection to the complainant immediately. After the open forum complainant approached opposite party on 22-12-2010. She was still not given connection. When the complainant failed to get connection even after direction of open forum, she filed this complaint on 29-12-2010 before this Forum. Registered notice was issued to opposite party from this Forum. It was received by first opposite party on 17-01-2011(date on acknowledgment card). On the next day itself opposite party has issued Ext.A2 letter to complainant stating that opposite party is willing to give connection. It is crystal clear that opposite party has delayed to give connection until the complainant approached the Consumer Forum. On behalf of opposite party it was submitted that there was no delay in giving connection and that opposite party was willing to give connection, but that complainant did not approach opposite party after receiving Ext.A2 letter. The complainant submitted that as the matter was already pending before the Forum and as the opposite party had requested to submit an affidavit on Rs.20/- stamp paper in the proforma appended along with Ext.A2 letter, she did not go to opposite party again. On perusal of Ext.A2 letter it is seen stated that opposite party has directed the complainant to submit an affidavit. She has deposed that she was asked to submit in a Rs. 20/- stamp paper affirming that opposite party has not compelled her to purchase gas stove. According to her this was untrue and so did not go the office of opposite party further.

14. Ext. A3 is the proforma attached along with Ext.A2 letter in which condition No.2 reads as under:-

'The HP Gas Distributor has not forced me by any means towards purchase of Gas Stove (hot Plate) or any other appliances and products'.

15. The case of the complainant from the very beginning has been that she was compelled to purchase a gas stove. She preferred complaint to concerned authorities and this is known to opposite party. On such score asking the complainant to submit such affirmation in a stamp paper prior to obtaining connection is totally unfair on the part of opposite party. On behalf of opposite party it is explained that such type of affidavits are taken routinely from consumers. Ext B4 is such a printed form in plain paper signed by the complainant. She deposed that she had signed it at the time of making the application for connection without going through the contents. Further this is not on stamp paper and appears on the face of it to be filled up printed form. We cannot deter from saying that it is highly wrong on the part of opposite parties to take signatures on such printed forms which would help to absolve them from the liabilities arising out of the illegal /prohibited activities indulged by them. Such an affirmation has no other intention. We therefore accept the stand of the complainant as to why she did not go to opposite party after receiving Ext.A2 letter. At the cost of repetition it has to be stated that Ext.A2 letter was send only after receiving notice from this Forum.

16. To appreciate the question of deficiency in this case it is necessary to take note of para 18 of the counter affidavit of opposite party which is reproduced as under:-

'ഹരജിക്കാരിക്ക് ഈ ഏജന്‍സിയുടെ ഉപദേശപ്രകാരം ഹരജിക്കാരിയുടെ വീടിന്നടുത്തുളള ഏജന്‍സിയില്‍ അപേക്ഷ നല്‍കുകയോ ഹരജിക്കാരിയുടെ വീടിന്നടുത്തുളള ഏജന്‍സിയില്‍ ഗ്യാസ് കണക്ഷനു അപേക്ഷിക്കാന്‍ താല്‍പര്യമില്ലെന്നും, ഈ ഏജന്‍സിയില്‍ നിന്നു ഗ്യാസ് കണക്ഷന്‍ വേണമെന്നും പ്രത്യേകം എഴുതി നല്‍കുകയോ ചെയ്തിരുന്നെങ്കില്‍ 2010 സെപ്തമ്പറിന്നു മുന്‍പായി ഗ്യാസ് കണക്ഷന്‍ കിട്ടുമായിരുന്നു.'

The above affirmation shows that there was no hindrance to give connection to the complainant. On the foregoing discussions we are able to safely conclude that the case of the complainant that opposite party denied to provide gas connection without purchasing a stove to be probable and acceptable. Complainant has established a case in her favor. We find opposite party deficient.

17. Point(ii):-

The prayer of the complainant is to direct opposite party to give her gas connection. This prayer is only to be allowed. The compensation claimed by her is on the higher side. But the complainant has to be compensated for the delay, hardships and mental agony suffered by her. In our view, an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation together with costs of Rs.1,000/- would be adequate relief to the complainant. It will also prevent opposite party in indulging in prohibited activities further and will bring a qualitative change in the service of gas agencies. First opposite party is the agent of second opposite party. Hence both opposite parties are liable.

18. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order first opposite party to give gas connection to the complainant forthwith. We also order both opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation together with costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On failure to give gas connection to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, first opposite party shall in addition pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.

Dated this 19th day of July, 2011.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the order dated, 14-01-2011 passed in Open Forum .

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 18-01-2011 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the proforma attached along with Ext.A2 letter

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4

Ext.B1 : Application received from complainant to opposite party.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the collection details of hot plate inspection charges.

Ext.B3(series) : Carbon copy of the letter dated, 18-01-2011 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B4 : Affidavit executed by complainant to opposite party.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER