Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/27/2023

INDIAN OIL ADANI GAS PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJUSHA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH KAPOOR AND M S RANA

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	27 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	12.02.2023
Date of Decision	:	09.06.2023

 

 

 

 

 

1]      Indian Oil Adani Gas Private Limited through its Managing Director/Director, 1^st Floor, Graphene  Building Plot No.16 IT Park Road, Sector 22, Panchkula, Haryana.

2]      Managing Director/Director, Indian Oil Adani Gas Private Limited, 1^st Floor, Graphene Building Plot No.16 IT Park Road, Sector 22, Panchkula, Haryana.

Both the above appellants through Sh. Naveen Sharma working as Associate Manager, Indian Oil-Adani Gas Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Manjusha Rani, Aged about 61 years w/o Sh. Ram Lal Jindal, Resident of House No.1195, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.

 …..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-

 

Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by opposite parties, namely, Indian Oil Adani Gas Private Limited & its Managing Director/Director (appellants herein), against order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby his consumer complaint bearing No.691 of 2020 has been allowed against the appellants by the Ld. District Commission in the following manner:-

“10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs No.1 & 2 have been proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with directions to pay a lumpsm amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the causing harassment & agony as well as litigation expenses and it also includes the refund of minimum charges so charged by OPs. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.One Lakh in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India,   Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

         Since the complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as such we direct the opposite parties, per Section 39(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to discontinue the unfair trade practice of charging their consumer(s) without any consumption under the garb of minimum charges without getting the consent and knowledge of the customer/consumer and further not to repeat this unfair trade practice to gain unnecessary monetary benefits.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.”

2]             Briefly, stated the facts before the Ld. District Commission were that the respondent/complainant was having two PNG Gas Connections provided by the appellants/opposite parties vide Customer ID No.2000026352 for Ground Floor & Customer ID No.2000026353 for first floor. For the period from 1.9.2020 to 31.10.2020, there was no consumption of gas but the appellants sent bill of Rs.236/- to the respondent including meter rental & taxes. At the time of installing the PNG Gas connection as well as in the agreement signed at the time of taking connections and depositing security amount, there was no mentioned of any minimum charges to be charged by the appellants.  The respondent raised issue with the appellants but they did not pay any heed, as such, the respondent got the said connections disconnected for which the appellants also charged Rs.1,180/- including taxes.  It was stated that the appellants could not charge for Zero consumption and that there was no clause of minimum charges in case of non-usage of consumption of gas, which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

3]             While contesting the complaint, the appellants/ opposite parties in their reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, pleaded that if the consumption is below of minimum threshold, then the minimum charges are applied as per the tariff card of the appellants available in public domain.  It was further stated that tariff card also mentioned the charges of the Permanent Disconnection of the meter (Annexure OP-1/1).  It was further stated that in the terms & conditions signed by respondent, it was mentioned that charges shall be payable by buyer to seller per prevailing tariff card. It was further stated that minimum charges are levied even by the Chandigarh Electricity Department and Indraprastha Gas Limited (Annexures OP-1/3 & OP-1/4 respectively). Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, the appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record, the Ld. District Commission allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

5]             The order of the Ld. District Commission has been assailed on two grounds that it erred in granting relief beyond prayed for by the respondent; that it also has not considered the fact that in terms and conditions, signed by the complainant, it is clearly mentioned that the charges shall be payable by the buyer to the seller as per the prevailing tariff card which clearly mentioned that the said card belongs to the appellants; that the Ld. District Commission erred in holding that levying of minimum charges is unfair trade practice when there is a clear cut judgment of this Commission in the case of “Anil Kumar Sethi through G.P.A. Sh. Subhash Chand Versus Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, U.T., Chandigarh and anr.” decided on 02.11.2012, holding that minimum charges are payable; that Ld. District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Clause 19 of the terms and conditions, which clearly mentioned that all disputes and all other matters arising out of the agreement shall be governed by laws of India and is subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at New Delhi alone. In this regard, the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Brahmani River Pellets Limited Versus Kamachi Industries Limited”, Civil Appeal No.5850 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.15672 of 2019) decided on 25.07.2019 and that of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in “M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ld. Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Anr.”, First Appeal No.33 of 2014 decided on 25.02.2016.

6]            On behalf of the respondent, while supporting the order passed by the Ld. District Commission allowing the consumer complaint, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the opposite parties be dismissed being meritless.

7]             After considering the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by the opposite parties is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

8]             The contention raised by the appellants that the Ld. District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of Clause 19 in the terms and conditions, as per which, The Courts at New Delhi alone were having the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at New Delhi alone is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the complaint had been filed under new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as per Section 47(4)(d) whereof, a complaint can be instituted before the State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant resides or personally works for gain. Here also, the complainant Manjusha Rani is resident of Chandigarh and thus, the Ld. District Commission at Chandigarh has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, which it rightly did. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the appellants are of no help to them. Thus, this contentions stands rejected being not tenable.

9]             Contesting the case on merits, the appellants have placed reliance on Tariff Card, Annexure A-1/1 issued by the appellants, wherein at Sr. No.A, under the heading “Connection Related Charges’, at Sr. No.4, ‘Minimum Charge per month’ has been mentioned as Rs.75/-. Similarly, at Sr. No.B, under the heading “Other Charges’, at Sr. No.6, ‘Full Installation Removal Charges in case of termination’ have been mentioned as Rs.1,000/-. It is the case of the appellants that in any case, they could charge Rs.75/- per month, which they charged from the respondent for the period in question. It may be stated here that when there was no consumption of gas for the period from 01.09.2020 to 31.10.2020, then, where is the question of charging minimum charges of Rs.75/- per month for the said period. Moreover, it is no where explained in the Tariff Card as to what for these minimum charges of Rs.75/- per month are being charged. Further, the Tarrif Card, Annexure A-1/1, now placed on record by the appellants, cannot be relied upon as it was never supplied to the respondent alongwith the application form containing terms and conditions.

10]           Further, the definition of “Tariff Card” at (xx), in the Terms and Conditions, does not contain minimum charges. Not only this, Term & Condition pertaining to Invoicing under Clause 4.1 states that the quantity of PNG supplied to the Buyer shall be measured through a meter installed and maintained by the Seller at the Buyer’s premises. Immediately upon commissioning of the meter and commencement of the PNG Supply, the Seller shall deliver to the Buyer the first invoice mentioning details of all the pending payments related to the connection, which the Buyer shall pay by due date mentioned in the said invoice. Nowhere, this term and condition says payment of any minimum charges. Therefore, the Tariff Card could not be forced upon to the respondent to claim such superfluous charges. Further, as rightly contended by the respondent, no such charges have been mentioned in Clauses 3, 5(xi), 8.2, 9.1, 10.1 & 12 of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. Moreover, bare perusal of Invoice (bill) dated 10.11.2020, Annexure C-1 & Invoice dated 21.11.2020, Annexure C-3, for the period 01.11.2020 to 21.11.2020 transpires that apart from charging minimum charges, the appellants also charged rental and also took Security Deposit of Rs.500/- from the respondent. Certainly, they will be earning interest on the security deposit amount, which they took from the respondent and similarly situated consumers. Once they had taken security deposit from the consumer, then, charging of minimum charges amounted to unfair trade practice and that too, for the period, when there is no consumption at all. The Ld. District Commission further rightly held gross deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants. So far as reliance placed on Anil Kumar Sethi through G.P.A. Sh. Subhash Chand (supra), it may be stated here that the said case being distinguishable on facts is of no help to the appellants as in the said case, there was no dispute with regard to non-mentioning of such minimum charges in the terms & conditions. The respondent in the instant case has categorically stated that the agreement nowhere showed that the appellant could charge any such charges categorized as “Minimum Charges” for non-usage. Therefore, in our concerted view, the Ld. District Commission in Para 8 of its order has rightly observed that the appellants were not justified in demanding or charging any amount against any head, which was never brought to the notice of the respondent well before providing such facility/service.

11]           In our considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is well based, legal and valid in the eyes of law and as such, this Commission finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of Ld. District Commission, which is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12]           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit with no orders as to costs.

13]           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14]           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

09.06.2023.

 

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad