This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to give gas connection to complainant and also for directing 1st opposite party to pay `12,000 as compensation and the cost of this proceedings.

          The case of the complainant is that he was in the waiting list No.112313970000948 dated 12.5.10 for LPG connection. When he received sanction order he approached opposite party. But he was sent back on saying various reasons. Thereafter complainant sent notice on 18.4.11 to 1^st opposite party for giving connection. 1^st opposite party received notice but not complied the demands. Complainant is a govt. employee. He went and approached 1^st opposite party again on 27.4.11. After several hours of waiting when the connection proceeding were completed complainant became ready for payment of the amount as per the notice sent by the 1^st opposite party, 1^st opposite party told him that connection would be provided only if the stove is purchased from them. The complainant  was already in possession  of a recently  brought stove. So he did not purchase the stove complainant lost many employment days so as to approach the opposite party for the purpose of gas connection. Even though complainant approached opposite party again on 13.5.11 opposite party was not ready to give the connection. Moreover, he was insulted in front of general public. Hence this complaint. 

Though proper notice was sent to both opposite parties, 1^st opposite party only made appearance  and 2^nd opposite party remained absent through out. The brief facts of the version filed by the 1^st opposite party are as follows. Complainant had applied for LPG connection. Complainant had to pay `200 as per the circular towards service charge. This opposite party is liable to give connection only after the payment is made. Since he was asked to pay the service charge he sent notice but the payment has not been made till date. So opposite party could not give the connection. There is no deficiency in service. This opposite party never insisted complainant to purchase stove from him. So also he did not insulted the complainant in any manner. Opposite party asked the complainant to remit the service charge by sending notice. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Parties?  

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, and DW2 and documents Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant and B1 on the side of opposite parties.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence in  tune with the  pleadings. He has adduced evidence that he was allowed gas connection on the application 112313/970000948 dt.12.5.2010. Ext.A1 is the intimation letter where by he was intimated to go within 15 days for availing his Indane Connection. To obtain connection he was also asked to make the following payment.

a)     Security deposit `1250 per cylinder

b)     Security deposit `150 per regulator

c)      Installation charges `35.

d)     Cost of suraksha Hose `150 per 1.2 Mtr. Length

e)     Cost of Domestic consumer card `35

f)       Inspection charges for hot plate if applicable `200

          Affidavit evidence stated that though he had approached 1^st opposite party gas connection had not been given. Ext.A2 is the copy of the notice.Ext.A4 acknowledgment proves that he has sent Ext.A2 to 1^st  opposite party. There is specific allegation that 1^st opposite party did not give him connection even though he had approached them with necessary documents, telling that there was no stock of gas. He adduced evidence further that he had approached 1^st opposite party again on  27.4.2011 as per the instruction of 1^st opposite party and completed all the proceedings but finally insisted  as condition to purchase  a gas stove from him. Since he was not purchased the stove from 1st opposite party he was denied the connection. Affidavit evidence further stated that he approached 1^st opposite party on 13.5.2011 but they not only denied the connection but also had insulted him in front of others. He has also stated that 2^nd opposite party did take any steps to provide connection though all these facts were informed them. Affidavit evidence further states that 1^st opposite party made entry in his ration card that the connection was given. Ext.A3 is the copy of the ration card which clearly stamped by 1^st opposite party the following:

1.     Customer No.         48977

2.     Connection type:    Single

3.     Name of the customer: Kunhimoideen

It is very clear that as per the above entry complainant had been officially allowed the connection. Ration card is an important document. An entry made in the ration card should be genuine and authoritative. Complainant’s arguments that he is not able to apply for new connection as long as the entry connection remains in the card. It is so serious. He was put to such a serious situation whereby he could not apply for new connection at all. In short he is put to such a situation that he has to depend up on the mercy of opposite party for the connection. The reason alleged by the opposite party is that he has not paid `200 as inspection charges. It is very difficult to digest the connection denied on the reason of non payment of `200 It is quite uncommon that an applicant of gas connection rejected to pay inspection charge `200. The applicant herein is an educated person and a govt. employee, who is in need of gas connection. It is foolish to believe that opposite party denied the connection since the complainant was not ready to pay `200. It is brought out in cross examination that he was ready to pay the amount `200 but the demand of the opposite party was to purchase a new stove which he was reluctant. If the contention of opposite party has taken as true, for the sake of arguments, what is the logic behind not sending reply to the notice of the complainant. Opposite party in his cross examination state that “ ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ registered notice In«n-bn-cp-¶p. adp-]Sn Ab-¨n-cp-¶p. A§s\ adp]Sn In«n-bnà F¶p ]d-ªm A#nbnÃ.”. Opposite party did not produce any acknowledgement. Even copy of the notice did not produced to prove that he had sent the reply. The chief affidavit filed by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party kept totally silent with regard to the notice sent by the complainant. The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has no case in their version that the notice of the complainant was replied. The facts of the case make ascertain that opposite party did not reply the notice of the complainant. Non reply of the notice reveals that the allegation of the complainant that the connection was denied due to the reason of not purchasing the new stove has substance. This type of dealings on the part of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party gas agency can only be considered as unfair and unjustifiable which create high degree of liability. It is a clear service deficiency on the part of opposite parties.  2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party remained absent through out. 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is a responsible prestigious company involved in the vital economic life of the nation. But they showed irresponsibility allowing their deals to do unfair dealings with the consumer. Complainant has the case that 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party did not take any action even though they were informed all the affairs happened in the case of the complainant. The non-appearance of the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party itself is a sign of their irresponsibility and unfairness that damage the prestigious face of a leading company. Hence both the parties are liable for the loss sustained by the complainant and to make good of the same. We are of opinion that opposite parties shall provide the connection without delay and 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has to pay `5000 as compensation together with `1000 as cot of this litigation. Hence issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to provide gas connection to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant should pay `200 on demand as inspection charge. It is also directed to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party to pay `5000 as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within one month, failing which both opposite  parties are liable to pay `50,000 with  interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of this order till realization of the amount. Complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of one month of the order.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                 Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.Copy of the intimation issued by  the   OP

A2.Copy of the regd. letter sent to   2^nd OP

A3.Copy of the ration card of complainant

 A4.Postal AD

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1. Copy of revision in service charge

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1.Damodaran

DW2.A.P. Paul

                                                  / forwarded by order/

                                                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent