D.O.F. 18.05.2012

                                          D.O.O. 03.10.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:          Sri. K.Gopalan                 :             President

             Smt. K.P.Preethakumari   :           Member

             Smt. M.D.Jessy                :             Member

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2012.

C.C.No.157/2012

Rasiya K.V.,

D/o. V.C. Memi,

Ameen Cottage, Paisai,

Peruvalathuparamba P.O.                                    :  Complainant

Irikkur, Kannur District

PIN : 670593

(Rep. by Adv. P.P. Mubashirali)

1.  The Proprietor,

     Happy Indane Service,

     The Indane Distributor,

     Kanhirode, P.O. Kanhirode,

     Kannur District.

     PIN : 670592

2.  The Customer Care Officer,                                      :  Opposite Parties

     Indian Oil Corporation (LPG),

     Indane Area Office,

     PMK Towers, Wayanad Road,

     Civil Station P.O.,

     Kozhikode – 673020

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to

(i)                 accept the termination voucher issued by the Shilma Gas Service, Parappanangadi and to accept the application for LPG connection to issue LPG cylinders to the complainant.

(ii)              To pay `25,000 as compensation and

(iii)            To pay the cost of this litigation.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Complainant obtained LPG connection from Shilma Gas Services, Parappanangadi, Malappuram as Consumer No.31601 and subscription voucher No.11177300007169.  Accordingly she had been supplied gas cylinders regularly.  Meanwhile her husband died in the year 2011 and shifted her residence with her mother.  She is constructing her new house residing with mother.  She had informed the change of her residence from Parappanangadi to Irikkur, the Shimla Gas Service advised her to transfer her connection to opposite party No.1.  Shilma  Gas Service issued a termination voucher dated 17.11.2011 to the complainant.  On 16.12.22012 she approached the 1^st opposite party on 16.12.2012 and submitted all necessary papers.  1^st opposite party refused to accept the application stating that complainants brother Shakkil K.V. is the consumer of 1^st opposite party on the basis of another Ration Card at the same address.  Merely because her name and her brother’s name entered in the card the existing connection in the name of the complainant cannot be cancelled.  She had obtained the connection when she was residing with her husband at parappanangadi where they had separate ration card.  She was constrained to shift her residence after the death of her husband, and thereby necessitated the transfer of gas connection also.  Under these circumstances opposite parties are bound to accept the termination voucher and to transfer of existing gas connection.  A consumer is entitled to get transferred his/her connection if residence is changed .  Non-acceptance of termination voucher and denying of issue of LPG connection is a deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint. 

          Pursuant to the notice 1^st opposite party appeared and filed version though subsequently kept away without attending the proceedings in consequences which both opposite parties called absent and set exparte.

          1^st opposite party contended filing version that the complainant did not approach this opposite party or submitted application for gas connection.  It is false to say that she had approached 1^st opposite party on 06.12.2012.  This application if filed only by the instigation of some one in order to insult this opposite party.

          The main question that arose for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thus the relief sought for can be allowed or not.

          The complainant’s case is that after the death of her husband she had shifted her residence from Parappanangadi, Malappuram to Irikkur and so also constrained to transfer her existing LPG connection to the new residence.  Though both opposite parties were served properly 1^st opposite party alone appeared before the Forum.  1^st opposite party also remained absent afterwards but filed version contending that complainant did not approached them and submit any application.  Complainant also produced Ext.A1 photocopy of termination voucher – customer copy dated 17.11.2011 and Ext.A2  photocopy of Termination voucher – Indane Distributor copy.  Ext.A3 photocopy of the Ration Card of complainant also produced.

          Complainant alleged that 1^st opposite party refused to accept the application stating that complainants brother Shakkir K.V. is the consumer of 1^st opposite party on the basis of at the same address where the complainant is temporarily residing with her mother.  It is also stated that the said Shakkir is a married person and belongs to a specific family consists of his wife and children. Complainant submits that it is denial of justice if the existing connection is cancelled or denied, merely because her name and her brother’s name included in the same card.

          The facts of the case quite clearly reveals that complainant was having separate LPG connection.  Ext.A1 and A2 evidently prove that there is LPG connection.  Complainant also adduced evidence by chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination in tune with her pleadings.  There is no point in disbelieving the complainant. Facts and circumstances bring  the truth that she is constrained to shift her residences from Parappanangadi to Irikkur in consequence of the death of her husband.  She is entitled to get shifted the connection to her residence, whether living there permanently or temporarily.  Complainant adduced evidence that she is constructing her own house and the present residence is a temporary accommodation with her mother.

          The contentions of 1^st opposite party has no base.  Opposite parties did not take interest to contest the matter. 1^st opposite party filed version and remained absent thereafter.  2^nd opposite party did not make appearance at all.  The only contention raised by 1^st opposite party is that complainant has not approached him.  If that is true nothing prevented him from adducing evidence to that affect.  It is merely an attempt to escape from liability. There is no reason to disbelieve the complainant.  In the ordinary course of dealings there is nothing to believe that the complainant lodged a false case against complainant by the instigation of somebody else in order to insult him.  Opposite party did not make any explanation in the version, though he pleaded so.  1^st opposite party is bound to accept the termination voucher and to give LPG connection to complainant obtaining application. Opposite party is not entitled to reject her application merely because her name happened to be remained in old Ration Card.  Attempt the cancellation of existing connection in the name of complainant is only a part of unfair dealings.  If the existing LPG connection happened to be cancelled as a result of doing or not doing of any act on the part of opposite parties they will be liable for all the loss and sufferings of the complainant.  2^nd opposite party is warned to take precaution not to make use of LPG connection for any sort of unfair dealings.  Thus it is found latches on the part of 1^st opposite party in denying the opportunity to complainant from getting transferred her existing LPG connection.  The right of the complainant to keep the existing LPG connection shall not be prevented on technical ground.  Hence it is ordered opposite party to accept the termination voucher together with the application for transfer and to make arrangements to get the complainant’s LPG connection transferred without raising technical objections.  Issues No.1 to 3 answered in favour of complainant.