DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.74/2008

1. The Church of God,

V-1571, Pattambi,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad District

Represented by Saji Simon,

Pastor of the church.

(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar, C.S.Sreedevi)

2. Shaji Simon,

Pastor of the church,

The Church of God,

V-1571, Pattambi,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad District - Complainant

(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar, C.S.Sreedevi)

Vs

1. The Managing Partner,

M/s.Sree Narayana Indane Service,

III/135C, Thekkumuri,

Pattambi.

(By Adv.K.Haridas)

2. The Chief Area Manager,

Indane Area Office,

Cochin.

(By Adv.K.Haridas)

3. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Marketing Division, G9, Aliyavar Jung Marg,

Bandra East,

Mumbai – 400 051. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows:-

First complainant is a Church of Christian belief and 2^nd complainant is its Pastor. For the purpose of preparing food in the kitchen, the Pastor in charge of the church has

given an application for consumer gas connection with the opposite parties. Accordingly gas connection was issued in the name of the Pastor in the address of the church. The said connection is purely used for the purpose of the church. Application for the said connection was given on 16/11/2004 and the same was allotted on 8/3/2005. The house of the Pastor is situated a few kms away from the church. He is having another gas connection which is used by his family. On 29/02/08, 1^st opposite party sent notice to the complainant alleging that he is holding two gas connection and the latest is liable to be disconnected. On 04/03/08, Pastor has sent reply through his lawyer stating true facts that consumer No.12942 belongs to the church and it does not belongs to the person. According to the complainant, since Section 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas(Regulations of Supply and Distribution)Orders, 2000, only intend to stop the misuse of the subsidized public distribution system by persons holding more connection than one for own benefits, this particular instance do not fall under the same. But opposite parties inspite of the above notice stopped supply of gas in the disputed consumer number. The church was put to great hardship due to the above act of the opposite parties. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

2. Opposite party No.3 was set ex-parte. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending the following.

3. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant has applied for a domestic connection and the same was allotted after complying the norms. Thereafter it was noted that the complainant was using two domestic connections violating Section 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas(Regulations of Supply and Distribution)Orders, 2000. Section 3 of the said order do confirm that an individual can have only one gas connection of any Govt. Oil Company through out India. 1^st opposite party has sent notice to the complainant stating that he is holding more than one connection and the latest is liable to be cancelled. Moreover, in the complaint itself it is stated that the said connection is for the use in the church which cannot be categorized as a domestic use. The petitioner should have taken a non-domestic connection in his position as a Pastor and not as an individual. Further the said connection will not fall under the category of NDE (Non Domestic Exempted). Hence it is clear that the complainant is misusing a domestic connection which is subsidized for the non-domestic purpose and the same is against the provision of relevant laws. Having finally satisfied that the complainant is holding two connection and that he is using a domestic connection for a non domestic purpose, the 1^st opposite party stopped further

supply of cylinders. Since opposite parties has acted as per rules, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The complainant in proof of his case, filed his affidavit and got Exts.A1 to A4 series marked while the 1^st opposite party filed affidavit and Ext.B1 to B4 marked.

5. Now the short question to be considered is whether the act of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part and if so what is relief the complainant is entitled to?

6. We heard the learned counsels for both parties in detail and perused all relevant documents on record.

7. The specific case of the complainant is that he hold two different connections, one in his individual capacity and other in his capacity of Pastor of the church. Opposite parties blocked the connection of the church under the head multiple connections. Opposite parties on the other hand contended that as per Section 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution Orders), no person shall possess more than one connection in his name. Hence the complainant has no authority to possess two connection whether it be in his personal capacity or in the capacity of a Pastor. According to opposite parties complainant would have taken a non domestic connection for the use of church.

8. There is no dispute as to the fact that complainant has obtained the gas connection one in his residential address and other in the capacity of Pastor in the address of the church. Nothing has been concealed by the complainant. Section 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Orders, 2000 states that 'A person having a connection of liquefied petroleum gas granted under the public distribution system, shall not possess more than one connection of liquefied petroleum gas granted under the public distribution system'.

9. The said section is intented to prevent unauthorised possession, supply and consumption of liquefied petroleum gas. The said provision has no application in this present case since the connection provided is under two different capacity, one for his residential purpose in his residential address and other for the use of the church.

10. Another contention of the opposite parties is that complainant ought to have obtained a non domestic connection or under the category of extra domestic exempted. Here one thing to be noted is that opposite parties allotted connections after verifying the records and ascertaining true facts. For a mistake on the part of 1^st opposite party complainant cannot be made to suffer. Further in Ext.B1 notice intimating blocking of the connection, the only reason stated for blocking the connection is that of multiple connection held by the person. There is no mention as to the category of the connection held by the complainant as stated in the version opposite parties is heavily relying on Ext.B2, which is the circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to all distributors advicing to block connection under the head same name and same address. Here admittedly address is different. Blocking the connection under the head 'same name' alone is against reason. Hence we are of the view that blocking of the connection of church under head 'multiple connection' is deficiency in service on their part.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 1^st opposite party is vicariously liable for the act of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

12. In the result, complaint allowed and we order the following.

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to allot gas connection domestic or non-domestic on application as per rule to the complainant No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of order.

2. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service and sufferings of the complainant.

3. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

13. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainants

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Refill pass book against customer No.12942

Ext.A2 – Copy of subscription voucher No.591266 issued by 1^st opposite party to

1^st complainant

Ext.A3 – Copy of Letter No.S.L.No.120 dtd.29/02/08 sent by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A4 (Series) – Photo copy of reply notice sent by 2^nd complainant to 1^st opposite party,

acknowledgement card, postal receipts etc.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Letter No.S.L.No.120 dtd.29/02/08 sent by 1^st opposite party

Ext.B2 – Copy of circular No.12/2007-08 dt.29/02/08 issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.B3 – Letter No.CAO/235 dtd.24/03/08 sent by 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party

Ext.B4 – Copy of reply letter sent by 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party

Costs (Not allowed)