KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.691/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 30/08/2014

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.190/2012 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta dated 23/07/2013)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :                  MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :                 MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          The Manager,

Kabani Indane Services, By Pass Road,

Near Leo Hospital, Kalpetta.

(By Adv:  Haridas )                    

                   Vs

RESPONDENT:

1.     Ramla.T., Thayyil House,

Thurakottu Vayal, Kalpetta, Chuzhali,

Wayanad-673 121.

(By Adv:   P. Rajmohan) 

2.     Supply Officer, Bythiri Taluk,

Supply Office, Bythiri.

                  JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          The 1^st opposite party is the appellant who preferred this appeal against the order in C.C No.190/2012 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad wherein the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

          2.  The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of 1^st opposite party who de-activated the gas connection of the complainant and on enquiry it is informed that the 1^st opposite party is entitled to de-activate the gas connection if the consumer has not filled the gas within 6 months.  It is the allegation of the complainant that he was not intimated the de-activation causing financial loss and mental agony.  She was the consumer of the 1^st opposite party for 8 years and the act of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which is to be compensated and filed this complaint for re-activation of her gas connection and for Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

          3.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the 1^st opposite party as the distribution of LPG is strictly in accordance with the directions and specifications of Indian Oil Corporation.  It is also stated in the version that as per the standing instructions and the computer programme supplied by Indian Oil Corporation the service connection to a customer will be locked if the customer has not chosen to refill the cylinder atleast once in 6 months or even by completion of 178 days.  The complainant availed the cylinder on 12/11/2011 and as per the rules the connection de-activated with effect from 11/5/2004.  It is specifically stated that the complainant never approached the opposite party during 6 months after the last delivery.  The Indian Oil Corporation had given direction for re-activation of such de-activated connections.  The consumers interested to re-activate their connection shall approach and apply for the same and comply the formalities.  Thereafter the application is to be verified and compared with the signature in the original application and on inspection of the premises and assuring safety checks and detection of                  multi connection the 1^st opposite party can get the connection          re-activated.  The 1^st opposite party has nothing to do with the deactivation and re-activation as it is purely under the instructions from the Indian Oil Corporation.  The 2^nd opposite party filed version stating that the activation and de-activation of the gas connection is to prevent misuse of gas connection which is dealt by the distributors as per the direction and guidelines of Government and oil companies.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.

          4.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked documents as Exbts. A1 to A7.  The 1^st opposite party produced Exbt. B1 which pertains to a circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation dated 19/11/2010.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party vehemently argued that the 1^st opposite party has no role in de-activation or      re-activation and the 1^st opposite party being the distributor is merely following the directions and circular provided by the Indian Oil Corporation.  In this case the respondent had not taken refill of the gas cylinder within 6 months and as per the computer programme the de-activation took place and the re-activation can be effected only on application by the consumer.  The respondent had not approached the 1^st opposite party with any application and she straight away     filed the complaint.  The consumer is to be vigilant to refill the gas connection within 6 months and the complainant had not followed the directions.  Hence the de-activation took place.  As the directions are forwarded by the Indian Oil Corporation they were not made a party in this case.  Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  A distributor is acting upon the directions of the Indian Oil Corporation and hence the de-activation of the connection is mandatory.  The 1^st opposite party is not liable for de-activation and the distributor has followed the guidelines and the liability fastened by the Forum Below is to be set-aside.

          6.  The counsel for the respondent submitted that the             de-activation was not intimated to the complainant and there is no knowledge about the circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the distributor.  It is the primary duty of the distributor to inform the consumer the re-activation and de-activation which was absent in this case.   The  gas  connection is a primary need of a consumer and it is to be given priority.   It is submitted that the circular was not published anywhere  in  the  premises  of  the  distributor  and  only  after  filing this   complaint   the   distributor   published   the   circular   in   its
premises.  The counsel also pointed out that on earlier occasions also the respondent was provided gas by the opposite parties even after 6 months.  This was clearly evidenced by Exbt. A1 showing the details of issuance of gas to the complainant.  It is pertinent to point out that at no point of time the distributor denied the gas to the complainant except on 12/11/2011.  The distributor never informed the complainant that the gas connection is to be taken within 6 months or else the system will be locked automatically on expiry of 178 days.  The complainant was the consumer from 2006 onwards and was using the gas connection very promptly.  This resulted in mental agony and financial stress to the complainant.  The              de-activation effected from 11/5/2012.  It is also submitted that on submission of application for re-activation the connection was given within 3 days.  However the respondent/complainant was under mental stress by non issuance of gas connection and the other re-activation formalities which was not within the knowledge or notice of the consumer.

          7.  On hearing both sides in detail we find that it is an undisputed fact that the complainant was a consumer of the 1^st opposite party and the connection was de-activated from 11/5/2012.  The complainant had to approach the consumer forum in order to get it re-activated as the complainant was not aware or without any notice on the side of the distributor the complainant was put to trouble.  The gas connection being primary need of the consumer the distributor has a minimum responsibility to put the notice of de-activation, if any, against the consumer.  In this case, it was admitted by 1^st opposite party that the notice was placed after filing the complaint.  However all the consumers need not be aware of the circulars issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the distributor.  It is true that the Indian Oil Corporation was not a party to the proceedings still being the recipient of the circular the 1^st opposite party is liable for the damages caused to the complainant.  Hence we are of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and the order of the forum is to uphold.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

A. RADHA           :         MEMBER

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

sa.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.691/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 30/8/2014

Sa.