C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/96
COMPLAINANTS : 1) Laxmi Saha,
W/o Sudama Saha,
Vill. Jugpur Coloy, P.O. Jugpur,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2) Sudama Saha
S/o Late Joydeb Saha,
Vill. Jugpur Colony, P.O. Jugpur,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Prop. Pradip Kumar Saha,
M/S Bishnupriya Gas Service,
Vill. Jagadanandapur,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 28th January, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No. 1 is a consumer of Indane gas cylinder under the OP having consumer No. BP14703 to whom the OP has been supplying gas for a long time. It is their further case that the complainant No. 2 i.e., the husband of the complainant No. 1 has also another connection under the OP. Prior to his marriage the complainant No. 2 resided with his brothers and enjoyed the said gas under consumer No. BP 12087. After marriage he is residing separately along with his wife. His gas cylinder is used by his brothers and mother. So he verbally requested the OP No. 1 to stop supply of gas cylinder to his mother and brothers who were enjoying the same, but the OP did not take any step to stop supply the gas cylinder as his brothers and mother forcibly kept the gas cylinder in their custody. So the complainant No. 2 failed to surrender his cylinder with regard to his connection to the OP. All the documents of the gas connection are lying in the custody of his mother and brothers. On 02.08.10 the OP sent a letter to the complainant No. 2, inter alia, directing him to surrender his gas connection. On receipt of the said letter, the complainant No. 2 met the office of the OP and intimated him that as his mother and brothers forcibly kept the cylinder and documents in their custody, so it was not possible for him to hand over those to him. Rather he requested the OP to cancel the connection in his name at which the OP asked him to intimate the matter as per law. Then the complainant No. 2 sent a lawyer’s letter on 05.08.10 to the OP intimating that he was ready to surrender the gas connection, although the articles were forcibly kept in the custody of his mother and brothers and also requested the OP to take those articles in his custody as per law, as it was not possible for him to recover those articles from his mother and brothers. The complainants further submit that on 15.09.10 that the complainant No. 1 went to book a gas cylinder to the office of the OP at which he declined to book it on the plea that the complainant No. 2 sent a lawyer’s letter to him. So having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On the side of the OP written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his statement that all the recitals of the petition of complaint which took place are the subject matter between the complainant No. 2 and his family members and this OP has nothing to do in that matter. As per oral submission, it is not possible for this OP to accept the prayer of surrender connection as per IOC rules. Rather as per IOC rules the consumer will have to file a petition with a prayer to surrender his connection along with all the relevant documents and IOC rules also when the husband and wife live together they are not entitled to have two individual gas connections. As the complainants have two connections, so as per IOC rules, they are bound to surrender one connection. Therefore, the complainants have no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him
.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP it is available on record that admittedly the complainant No. 1 has a gas connection bearing No. BP14703 and the complainant No. 2 has another connection bearing No. BP 12087. It is also available that the complainant No. 1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively and both of them reside at the same premises. It is the further contention of the complainants that the gas connection in the name of the complainant No. 2 is now enjoyed by his mother and brothers and they declined to handover the documents along with the gas cylinder to him, rather they forcibly kept those in their custody. The complainant No. 2 expressed his desire to surrender the connection before the OP, but the surrender was not accepted by the OP as he failed to submit all the relevant documents with the cylinder before the OP No. 2. So he sent a lawyer’s letter asking the OP to intimate him regarding the legal step. It is submitted by ld. lawyer for the complainants at the time of his argument that as per IOC rules the complainants are not entitled to have two gas cylinders at the same premises as both of them are husband and wife. Ld. lawyer for the OP has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, published in The Hindu paper dtd. 19.11.08 in which the Hon'ble Court decided “A husband and wife living under one roof can posses only one Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) connection in either of their names and not two separate connections as held by many.” So in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and the IOC rule the complainants have to surrender one gas connection. Following this, the complainant No. 2 surrendered his gas connection, but the surrender was not actually done. It is the duty of the complainant No. 2 to produce all the relevant papers along with the cylinder before the OP for actual surrender of his gas connection but he failed to do his duty his family trouble for which the OP has no liability. Following the IOC rule and the decision of the Hon'ble Court the OP stopped supply of gas to the complainant No. 1. Gas is essential for leading a day to day domestic life. In the present case, at present the OP has stopped gas cylinder to the complainant No. 1 also. Now the question is whether the decision is correct? Our considered view is that in the situation of this case, it is not at all justified. OP should supply gas to the complainant No. 1 regularly in order to lead the day to day domestic life of the complainants. He should stop supply of gas cylinder with regard to the connection of the complainant No. 2 as the complainant No. 2 already submitted before him to surrender his gas connection. To that extent, he sent a lawyer’s notice also.
In view of the above discussions, we hold that for the ends of justice the OP must supply gas cylinder to the complainant No. 1 with regard to her connection No. BP 14703. At the same time we do further hold that the OP must stop supply of gas cylinder with regard to the connection of complainant No. 2 bearing consumer No. BP12087 forthwith though the gas connection is not formerly surrendered by the complainant No. 2 in favour of the OP. Considering the facts of this case it is our view also that practically there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in this case and so the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation or any litigation cost as prayed by them. Regarding the supply of second gas cylinder to the complainant No. 1 nothing is agitated by the ld. lawyer for the complainant at the time of his argument. So this prayer is not considered at this stage. In result the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/96 be and the same is decreed on contest in part against the OP without any cost. The OP is directed to supply one gas cylinder regularly to the complainant No. 1 with regard her consumer No. BP 14703. The OP is also directed to stop supply of gas cylinder with regard to consumer No. BP 12087 standing in the name of the complainant No. 2. The complainant No. 2 is directed to submit his gas cylinder along with relevant documents before the OP within a period of 15 days since this date of passing the order for surrender, in default, his gas connection number will also be treated as surrender.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
