Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/13/2014
P.S.Ramesh S/o. Srinivasan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Sri Viswanadha Gas Service, Rep by its distributor namely T.Chandra Mouli Naidu - Opp.Party(s)
A.Suresh
20 Jun 2015
ORDER
Filing Date:24.06.2014
Order Date: 20.06.2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
SATURDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
C.C.No.13/2014
Between
P.S.Ramesh,
S/o. Srinivasan,
D.No.5-67/1, 5th Cross South,
Baratham Mitta,
Pakala Post and Mandal,
Chittoor District. … Complainant
And
1. Sri.Viswanadha Gas Service,
Rep. by its Distributor namely T.Chandra Mouli Naidu,
Indian LPG Distributors,
Pakala Town,
Pakala Mandal,
Chittoor District.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Area Officer,
GVR Towers, 2nd Floor,
Bharathi Nagar, Ring Road,
Vijayawada.
3. The Sales Officer,
Divisional Manager Office,
LPG Sales,
C/o. I.O.C. Ltd.,
Divisional Officer,
R.C.Road,
Tirupati.
4. The Joint Collector,
Chittoor,
Chittoor District. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.06.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K.Chandrasekhar Naidu, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and Sri.L.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant / consumer for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency of service with interest at 12% p.a., 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to supply gas cylinder and also to sanction 2nd cylinder to the complainant, 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the costs of the litigation and 4) such other and further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant is a resident of the house bearing No.5/67, 5th Cross, South Bharatham Mitta, Pakala town, which consists of 4 portions. The complainant, his two brothers and mother are having one portion each out of the said 4 portions. The complainant and his mother are residing separately in one portion. There are two separate kitchens for each of them. In two portions out of four, his two brothers are residing independently and the remaining portion was let-out to one K.Adilakshmi.
3. That the complainant is having LPG connection bearing No.5395 with single cylinder, whereas his mother is having LPG connection bearing No.1173 with double cylinders from the year 1995. As the single cylinder is not sufficient to meet his domestic necessities, the complainant applied before opposite party No.1 for 2nd cylinder. Opposite party No.1 also allotted 2nd cylinder under registration No.399. Opposite party No.1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs.2,400/- for which complainant also demanded receipt, there arose misunderstanding between the complainant and opposite party No.1. Consequently, opposite party No.1 stopped supply of gas to both complainant and his mother as well from December 2011 onwards. The representations made by the complainant to opposite parties 1 to 4 became in-vain. The opposite party No.1 negligently and intentionally blocked the supply of refills to the complainant and his mother. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed his written version by way of objections denying parawise allegations of the complaint and further contended that the complainant and his mother are residing in the said house / portion together but both of them are availing two LPG connections, one in the name of Smt.Lakshmi, the mother of complainant bearing No.VG 001173 from 1996 onwards and the complainant is also having LPG connection bearing No.VG 005395 from 2000 onwards with single cylinder. That the complainant applied for 2nd cylinder on 23.07.2010. After obtaining permission from IOC (opposite party No.2) to issue 2nd cylinder to complainant, opposite party No.1 intimated the same to the complainant, but there was no response from the complainant. Therefore, opposite party No.1 got issued reminder letter to complainant through R.P. with Ack. due, informing the complainant the requirements for getting the 2nd cylinder. The complainant acknowledged the same. On mandatory check on 26.12.2011 by the delivery boy came to know that the complainant maintaining two gas cylinders, one in the name of complainant and another in the name of his mother and informed the same to opposite party No.1. On that opposite party No.1along with his staff visited the house of complainant bearing D.No.5/67, 5th Cross, South Bharatham Mitta, Pakala, and found that the complainant, his mother and his wife are residing in the same portion and maintaining two gas connections by misusing the subsidy of LPG gas. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to surrender one of the gas connections, but inspite of repeated requests even by writing, the complainant did not surrender any of the gas connections. The same is represented to opposite party No.3, the Deputy Manager, IOC, Tirupati and others for further action to block-out multiple gas connections on 26.12.2011 in the agency of opposite party No.1. It was also informed to opposite parties 2 and 4 through registered letter dt:27.12.2011. On the same day, the Deputy Manager, passed orders to block-out the connections, copy of the order is filed herewith. The same was also intimated to the complainant. Due to the above reasons, the complainant bore grudge against 1st opposite party and interrupting his office functioning and foisting false complaints. The matter was informed to opposite party No.2 through letter dt:09.12.2011. Again on 19.01.2012, opposite party No.1 informed the complainant about the orders to block-out the gas cylinder connections. As per the instructions of opposite party No.2 dt:01.08.2012 detect, block and terminate multiple connections hold by various customers, opposite party No.1 has blocked the connection of complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 prays the Forum to dismiss the case against opposite party No.1 with costs.
5. Opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed their written version by way of objections denying parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that as per record there exists two gas connections at the residence of complainant one in the name of Smt.Lakshmi under Consumer No.VG 001173 issued by 1st opposite party on 13.04.1996 with double cylinders with domestic pressure regulator and another connection in the name of complainant under Consumer No.VG 005395 issued by opposite party No.1 on 22.07.2000 with single cylinder along with domestic pressure regulator. As per amended Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of supply & distribution) Order 2000 dt:10.09.2009 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, one LPG domestic gas connection is permitted for one household. It is to be enforced strictly to rule-out multiple connections in any household. On physical check-up, it is found that there are two LPG connections in the house of complainant. The complainant did not produce any evidence of existence of two households in the same house / portion for getting two LPG connections. The complainant thus committed offence under Essential Commodities Act and blackmailing opposite party No.1. As per rules and regulations, opposite party No.1 blocked the above two connections with effect from 09.12.2011. The certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Pakala, clearly reveals that the complainant and his mother are residing in one portion (one household) in the same address. There are no merits in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. Opposite parties 2 and 3 also pleaded that complaint is hit by resjudicata in view of earlier C.C.No.30/2012 filed by the complainant on the file of Consumer Forum at Chittoor.
6. Opposite party No.4 did not placed any defense by written version or by way of chief affidavit. Opposite party No.4, therefore, is set exparte. Complainant did not claim any relief against opposite party No.4.
7. Complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their written versions and written arguments respectively. Exs.A1 to A14 were marked for the complainant and Ex.B1 is marked for opposite parties. Though opposite party No.1 filed 13 documents, they were not marked on their behalf.
8. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
1 to 4?
(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii). To what relief?
9. Point No.(i):- The case of the complainant in nutshell is that himself, his mother and 2 brothers got a house consisting of 4 portions bearing D.No.5/67 in the above mentioned address and all the 4 members are having equal shares in the said house. As such, his two brothers are residing in one portion each, one portion was let-out to one K.Adilakshmi and in the remaining 4th portion complainant and his mother are residing with 2 kitchens in the same portion. That the mother of the complainant is having LPG connection right from 1995 with Consumer No.VG 001173 with double cylinder, whereas the complainant is also having gas connection with Consumer No.VG 005395 with single cylinder from 2005 onwards. That the complainant applied to opposite party No.1 for sanction of 2nd cylinder to meet his domestic needs on 23.07.2010, and 2nd cylinder was also sanctioned under registration No.399. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.2,400/- for releasing 2nd cylinder, for which the complainant demanded receipt, for which opposite party No.1 refused to pass on receipt, thus there arose dispute between the complainant and opposite party No.1. In view of the above dispute, opposite party No.1 bore grudge against the complainant and stopped supply of cylinders to both the complainant and his mother as well. Despite his repeated requests and representations, opposite party No.1 did not release the connection. Thus opposite party No.1 committed deficiency in service. The version of opposite parties 1 to 3 is that as per Ex.B1 No.P-17011/4/2007-Mkt, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas dt:10.09.2009, one LPG domestic connection for one household (instead of per person earlier) and this should be enforced strictly to rule-out multiple connections in one household. The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (regulation of supply and distribution) Order 2000 as amended notification dt:10.09.2009, opposite parties 1 to 3 are bound to implement the above order under Ex.B1.
10. While supplying the LPG cylinders, the delivery boy noticed that there are two connections in one household of the complainant and the same was reported to opposite party No.1, on that opposite party No.1 along with his staff visited the house of complainant and found that the complainant, his mother and his wife are residing in the said portion together and maintaining gas cylinders by misusing subsidy of LPG gas, to that effect opposite party No.1 filed photos of the house and kitchen of complainant. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 sent a letter to complainant informing him that though the complainant and his mother were residing together in one household bearing D.No.5/67 at Bharatham Mitta, 5th cross, they are maintaining two gas connections and misusing the LPG subsidy. Therefore, opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to surrender one of the gas connections but the complainant did not do so and placed another version that he is residing in the same portion separately bearing D.No.5/67/1. This version is supported by Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 residence certificates issued by Tahsildar, Pakala dt:18.06.2014 and 27.06.2014 respectively. Correspondence made by the complainant under Exs.A1 to A12 and replies given by opposite party No.1 thereof shows that complainant and his mother are residing in one portion admittedly. The complainant did not file any scrap of paper to show that there are two separate kitchens, except the certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary under Ex.A10 dt:14.04.2012, which shows that the house bearing D.No.5/67 stands in the name of Smt.Lakshmi, W/o.Srinivasan and there are two kitchens in the said house. Even according to Exs.A13 and A14 Residence Certificates issued by Tahsildar, Pakala dt:18.06.2014 and 27.06.2014, there are two portions bearing D.No.5-67 in which Smt.Lakshmi is residing and in D.No.5-67/1 complainant is residing, both the certificates shows that complainant and his mother are residing in the said portions since last 3 years. These certificates seem to have been issued without proper enquiry. When the complainant’s mother Smt.Lakshmi availing gas connection since 1995 (as per complaint) and when the complainant is availing gas connection since 2005 (as per complaint), their residence in the said two portions since last 3 years as per Exs.A13 and A14 bears no merits.
11. Admittedly, both the complainant and his mother are having 2 LPG connections. LPG connection that was allotted to mother of complainant is of double cylinders, whereas the gas connection that was allotted to complainant is single cylinder, that the complainant applied for double cylinder (2nd cylinder), opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.2,400/-, for which complainant demanded receipt. As per Ex.A2, opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.1,657/- and the details there-under were given to the effect that Cylinder Deposit Rs.1250/-, Gas Bill Rs.347/-, Administrative charges for release of additional cylinder Rs.30/-, Register Post Rs.30/-, totaling Rs.1,657/-. There is no evidence except the allegation of complainant that opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.2,400/-, that apart it seems that complainant demanded receipt without paying the required amount. It is not the case of the complainant that he has paid the amount to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 refused to pass on receipt for the amount paid by the complainant.
12. Apart from all these allegations, it appears on record that no notice is given to the mother of the complainant by any of the opposite parties, without giving any prior notice or calling for explanation, stoppage of supply of cooking gas and finally block-out the gas cylinders to the mother of complainant is arbitrary and illegal. If there is any dispute with regard to possessing two (2) gas connections in one household, the concerned authorities i.e. either opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 or opposite party No.3, ought to have disconnected or stopped the supply of gas connection to one of the consumer i.e. either to the complainant or to the mother of complainant, if she commits any irregularities or violates the terms and conditions of Ex.B1. According to opposite parties 2 and 3, mother of complainant by name Lakshmi is availing LPG connection under Consumer No.VG 001173 issued by opposite party No.1 from 13.04.1996, stoppage of supply of LPG to Smt.Lakshmi without assigning any reasons is irregular and illegal. However, Smt.Lakshmi is not party in this case. Therefore, her case requires no further probe. If any gas connection is misused by the complainant, the opposite parties ought to have stopped the gas connection bearing No.VG 005395 that was allotted to complainant on 22.07.2000 (as per written version of opposite parties 2 and 3). It is not the case of opposite parties that they have supplied LPG connections to the complainant as well as to the mother of complainant in one and same address since 1996 and 2000. Though the amended Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 dt:10.09.2009, was came into existence, they have supplied the LPG cylinders to the complainant and also to his mother till December 2011. If both the connections were in one and the same household, the address for both the connections will be one and the same, if such is the case, why the opposite party No.1 did not find out the correctness of two addresses given by complainant and his mother and why he has supplied the LPG cylinders till 2011. The opposite party No.1 filed as many as 13 documents on his behalf, but none of them were got marked in support of his version, simply filing some documents before the Forum does not mean that they were proved. Even otherwise, those documents are the correspondence between complainant and opposite parties. In view of the admitted facts and circumstances, it is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in stopping the supply of LPG cylinders / LPG refills, to both the complainant and his mother as well, that too without assigning any reasons so far as LPG Connection No.VG 001173 is concerned, from the month of December 2011. Opposite parties have caused much inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are at liberty to disconnect any one of the gas connection, if more than one connection was given in one household either inadvertently or otherwise, but abruptly, stopped from the month of December 2011 onwards, the supply of LPG cylinders to both the Consumer No.VG 001173 stood in the name of Smt.Lakshmi and to the another Consumer No.VG 005395 stood in the name of complainant, it is quiet irregular on the part of opposite party No.1. In view of the above discussion and the admitted facts of both the parties, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Accordingly this point is answered.
13. Point No.(ii):- While advancing arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the LPG connection is one of the essential commodities provided by the Government, opposite party No.1 being the agent of gas supply, he ought to have verify properly even at the time of giving connections that whether any connection was given earlier for the same address and rectify the same by the time application is made for gas connection or even at the subsequent date and stop one such connection if address is one and the same and in one household. Stoppage of cooking gas supply to both the connections stood in the name of complainant and his mother as well, is nothing but violating the terms and conditions of supply of liquefied gas, because of such acts of opposite party No.1, the complainant was made to suffer mental agony and also suffered very much inconvenience for want of cooking gas. Whereas the learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 while advancing arguments fairly conceded that they are ready to provide gas connection to the complainant, if the Forum directs to do so. In view of the above discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to LPG supply and also entitled to compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 3, as they have stopped the supply of LPG cooking gas to the complainant from the month of December 2011 onwards admittedly. Accordingly this point is answered.
14. Point No.(iii):- In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 and that there is need of supply of LPG to the complainant immediately and that he is entitled to the gas connection with double cylinder and also compensation as well and the complaint is therefore to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to restore the LPG connection to the complainant with double cylinder on payment of required fee of Rs.1,657/- as demanded by opposite party No.1 under Ex.A2. That the opposite parties 1 to 3 are also hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant by virtue of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Complaint against opposite party No.4 is dismissed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.
Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 20th day of June, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES
PW-1: P.S.Ramesh S/o. Srinivasan (Affidavit filed).
RW-1: C.Chandra Sekhar (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S
Exhibits | Description of Documents |
Ex.A1 | Office copy (Photo copy) of requisition of complainant to the opposite parties with courier receipts. Dt: 29.04.2011. |
2. | Served (Original) copy of reminder letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party. |
3. | Office copy of requisition of complainant to the Opposite Parties 1 and 4 with postal receipts and acknowledgements. Dt: 26.11.2011. |
4. | Letter (Original) issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the complainant. Dt: 27.12.2011. |
5. | Office (Photo copy) copy of the letter to the 1st Opposite Party with return cover. Dt: 02.01.2012. |
6. | Office (Photo copy) copy of the letter to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties with postal receipts and acknowledgement and return cover. Dt: 23.01.2012. |
7. | Office copy of legal notice to the opposite parties with postal acknowledgements. Dt: 28.01.2012. |
8. | A true copy of endorsement issued by Tashildar, Pakala. Dt: 02.02.2012. |
9. | Served copy of replay notice issued by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 06.02.2012. |
10. | Certificate (Original) issued by the Panchayat Secreatary of Pakala in favour of the complainant. Dt: 14.04.2012. |
11. | Office copy of complaint in C.C.No.30/2012. Dt: 18.05.2012. |
12. | Order copy of C.C.No.30/2012 in Chittoor Forum-1. Dt: 22.03.2013. |
13. | Residence certificate (Original) issued by the Tahsildar, Pakala in the name of Smt. Lakshmi W/o. P.Sreenivasan. Dt: 18.06.2014. |
14. | Residence certificate (Original) issued by the Tahsildar, Pakala in the name of Sri P.S.Ramesh S/o. P.Sreenivasan. Dt: 27.06.2014. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S
Exhibits | Description of Documents |
Ex.B1 | Letter from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas, Government of India. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.