Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/41/2013

B.Navanethan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Parvathi Indhen Gas Company and one another. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Muthukrishnan

18 Jul 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 19.09.2013

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 18.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com.,   ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.41/2013

 

DECIDED ON THIS   18^th   DAY OF JULY  2014.

 

 

            B.Navaneetham,

            w/o Balasekaran

            No.3-123(New No.3-276, Main Road,

            Puragramam, Thittachery,

            Nagapattinam  District. – 609 703.                                       …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1.   Parvathy Indane Gas Agency,

Represented by its Proprietor,

           Mr.Senthil Veerappan,

            No.7, Neela Vadam Pokki Street,

           Nagapattinam  District 611 001.

2. The Chief Area Manager,

Indane Area Office,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Triveni (II Floor),B-35, Shastri Road,

Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli – 620 018.                              ….. Opposite parties

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 15.07.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.MuthuKrishnan Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.K. Kalidasan counsel for the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party having been set parte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

 

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is the Distributor of Indane Domestic Cooking Gas and the 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of Indane Area Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  The complainant who is the consumer of the cooking gas under the 1^st opposite party over phone requested on 17.09.2011 for supply of refill Cylinder cooking gas.  The 1^st opposite party declined her request stating that in respect of the Family Card of the complainant, two cooking gas connections had been provided.  On 19.09.2011, the complainant visited the 1^st opposite party and produced her Family Card to him for verification.  On 26.09.2011 the complainant wrote to the 1^st opposite party apprising him of the hardship and suffering of herself owing to the non-supply of the cooking gas. On 30.09.2011 the complainant once again requested the 1^st opposite party to supply her the cooking gas refill cylinder immediately and legal notice dated 18.10.2011 was also sent to the 1^st opposite party pointing out the negligence and deficiency of service on his part in non-supply of the cooking gas refill.  On 21.10.2011, only the 1^st opposite party supplied the cooking gas refill cylinder.  Thus the stoppage of the essential commodity of cooking gas to the complainant from 17.9.2011 to 21.10.2011, causing hardship and mental agony to her, is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore she prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.66000/- as compensation with exemplary costs to the complainant.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant requested for cooking gas refill cylinder over phone on 17.09.2011.  It was found out that another gas connection had been obtained in the name of one Thiru.R.MuthuKrishnan relating to the same family Card No.20/G/0364369 of the complainant  and as per the Amendment in the Liquefied  Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000, multiple service gas connections were prohibited and as per the policy of the Central Government there could be one LPG domestic gas connection for one household  and as there were two service connections relating to the family card of the complainant, the supply of  cooking gas refill cylinder was withheld by the 1^st opposite party and subsequently on 21.10.2011 after verifying of the records, the cylinder was supplied to the complainant.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party as the cooking gas refill cylinder was supplied immediately after the verification of the records to the complainant.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

                        4. The complainant has filed her proof affidavit in support of her claim and has filed 12 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A12.  The 1^st opposite party has also filed his proof affidavit in support of his defence and has filed 46 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B46.  Written arguments have been filed by the both the sides.

5. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

 

6. Point 1: The main allegation of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite

party in an arbitratory manner stopped the supply of Indane domestic cooking gas to the complainant from 17.09.2011 to 21.10.2011 causing hardship and mental agony to her and for his negligence act resulting in deficiency of service is liable to pay compensation of Rs.66000/- to the complainant with exemplary cost.  To prove his case the complainant has filed Exhibit A1, the copy of the domestic gas customer card for Customer No.646, Exhibit A2, the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party with postal acknowledgement card,  Exhibit A3 the another letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party with postal acknowledgement card, Exhibit A4, the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party with the postal acknowledgement card,  Exhibit A6, the copy of  the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party,  Exhibit A7, the copy of notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party with postal acknowledgement card,  Exhibit A8 the another copy of notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party with postal acknowledgement card, Exhibit
A9, the copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party,  Exhibit A10 the copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party claiming compensation for his deficiency of service with postal acknowledgement card and Exhibit A12, the copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties. 

                        7. Exhibit A2 is the proof for the request made by the complainant on 17.09.2011 over phone to the 1^st opposite party for the supply of gas refill cylinder.  Exhibit A3 is the request made by the complainant in writing for the supply of gas refill cylinder.  Exhibit A4 is the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the 1^st opposite party informing him for the complainant’s using the fire firewood from 07.10.2011 onwards owing to the non-supply of gas cylinder by the 1^st opposite party.  Exhibit A5 is the cash memo for the supply of gas refill cylinder by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant on 20.10.2011.  Exhibit A7 to A10 are the letters sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party calling upon him to give his reply for the earlier notices sent by him.  Exhibit A11 is the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st opposite party claiming compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service on his part for not supplying cooking gas refill cylinder for the period from 17.09.2011 to 21.10.2011.  Exhibit A12 is the lawyer’s final notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties calling upon them to pay the compensation of Rs. 66000/- either jointly or severally for the negligence and deficiency of service in not supplying cooking gas refill cylinder to the complainant.

                        8. The defence taken by the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant was found to be having multiple gas service connections, the complainant with customer card No.646 and another person by name R.Muthukrishnan with customer card No.994, were having gas connections based on one family card bearing no.20/G/364369 and as it was against the policy of the Central Government, the supply of gas connection was stopped to the complainant for verification of documents and on 21.10.2011, the gas refill cylinder was supplied to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Exhibit B38 is the multiple LPG connection list filed by the opposite party in which the complainant and one R. Muthukrishnan are noted to be having gas connections relating to the family card of the complainant.  Exhibit B39 is the customer history card dated 29.09.2011 relating to the complainant customer No.646 and one R.Muthukrishnan customer No.994 and therein the same Ration Card details are noted.  Exhibit B43 is the circular dated 01.11.2007 by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madurai area office in which it is noted that “In case of multiple connections when the customer surrenders the equipment and deposit is refunded, Customer copy of TV may be hand over to customer, in case the customer insists for TV copy”.  Exhibit B44 is the notice to the public by way of advertisement that there should be one LPG connection for one household and calling upon those who have multiple gas connections to surrender the LPG connections.   Exhibit B45, is the letter of the Government of India notifying the Amendment in the Liquefied   Petroleum Gas (Regulation of supply and Distribution) order 2000 which provides for one LPG domestic gas connection for one household (instead of per person earlier) with instruction to enforce the order strictly to rule out multiple connections in any household.

                        9. According to the said documents it is made clear that one household should have only one LPG connection and the extra connection should be surrendered to the Distributor. But in this case even though the gas connection no.646 and 994 of the complainant and one Muthukrishnan respectively, contained the same Ration Card particulars as evidenced by Exhibit B39, the scrutiny of copy of the said Family Card annexed with Exhibit B9 and B13, would reveal that the name of the said Muthukrishnan does not find place in the family card.  Only the complainant’s name finds place as the head of the family and the remaining members are her husband, daughter and sons.  The perusal of Exhibit B39 would also reveal that the particulars of the complainant and the said Muthukrishnan also differ from each other.  The complainant is noted to be living in the Main Road whereas the residence of the said Muthukrishnan is at the Raja Street.  Therefore just because both the gas connections of complainant and the said Muthukrishnan contained the particulars of the same Ration Card, it could not be said that the complainant was having multiple gas connections. The stoppage of the supply of cooking gas refill cylinder to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party during the period from 17.09.2011 to 21.10.2011 on the ground of holding multiple gas connections is not under dispute.  Therefore it is very clear that the 1^st opposite party without proper inquiry and without any basis withheld the supply of gas cylinder to the complainant during that period on some misconceptions.  The 1^st opposite party ought to have at least sent a notice to the complainant calling upon her to surrender the gas connection as she was found to be having two service connections for her Ration Card one in the name of herself and another in the name of one R.Muthukrishnan.  Had the 1^st opposite party sent such notice to the complainant, the situation of withholding  the supply of gas refill cylinder to the complainant would not have arisen as the complainant would have produced all the documents such as the family card and the Election Identity  card of herself and her family members thereby proving that the said Muthukrishnan was not a member of her family.

                        10.  Even though the 1^st opposite party has stopped the supply of the essential commodity, the cooking gas to the complainant from 17.09.2011 to 21.10.2011, the complaint has sent registered letters on 26.09.2011, 30.9.2011 and 18.10.2011 under Exhibits A1 to A3 respectively under registered post with acknowledgement due.  The 1^st opposite party has not cared to send a reply to the said notices and the perusal of Exhibit A2 goes to prove that the complainant had been to the 1^st opposite party’s office with her husband Balakrishnan on 19.09.2011 itself and produced her family card for verification.  Therefore having ascertained that the name of the said the Muthukrishnan does not find place in the family card of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party ought to have immediately caused the supply of gas refill cylinder to the complainant as she was not a customer having multiple connection.  Therefore the very inaction on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not replying the notices sent by the complainant by herself and through her counsel Thiru.Muthukrishnan under Exhibits A6 to A12 that too in spite of the repeated reminders made therein seeking  reply from him is definitely a sheer deficiency of service on his part.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party’s action  in not supplying  the essential commodity of cooking gas refill cylinder to the complainant during the period from 17.09.2011 to 21.10.2011 is not only negligence on his part but also sheer deficiency of service too.

                        11.  In this case Exhibits A2 to A11 filed by the complainant are filed by the 1^st opposite party also as Exhibits B1, B4, B20, B21, B23, N25, B27 and B34 respectively. Many other Exhibits filed by the 1^st opposite party such as writ petitions, writ appeal and other connected proceedings in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the documents relating to the gas connection of one Muthukrishnan are not relevant to this case and they are extraneous for arriving at a decision in this case.

12.Point 2: In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The complainant’s claim of compensation at Rs.66000/-(Rupees sixty six thousand only)  for the hardship and mental agony of the complainant appears to be exhorbitant  in the opinion of this Forum.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.20000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused  to her, owing to the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed  by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this    18^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

List  of document   filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.12.03.2001: The Xerox copy of the Gas connection Card for the Customer

   No.646 of the complainant issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt.26.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

   opposite party with the postal acknowledgement card.

Ex.A3/Dt.30.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the another letter sent by the complainant to the

   1^st opposite party with the postal acknowledgement card.

Ex.A4/Dt.18.10.2011:The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to

    the 1^st opposite party with the postal acknowledgement card.

Ex.A5/Dt.20.10.2011:The Xerox copy of the receipt for the payment of refill gas cylinder

    given by the 1^st opposite party on 21.10.2011.

Ex.A6/Dt.29.02.2012: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the

   1^st opposite party.

 

Ex.A7/Dt.02.04.2012: The Xerox copy of the reminder  notice 1 sent by the complainant’s

   lawyer to   the  1^st opposite party.

Ex.A8/Dt.05.05.2012: The Xerox copy of the reminder notice 2 sent by the complainant’s

   lawyer to the   1^st opposite party.

Ex.A9/Dt.20.07.2012: The Xerox copy of the reminder notice 3 sent by the complainant’s

   lawyer to the   1^st opposite party.

Ex.A10/Dt.5.10.2012: The Xerox copy of the final reminder notice sent by the    

   complainant’s lawyer to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A11/Dt.26.3.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s  lawyer to

   the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A12/Dt.13.8.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the              

    opposite parties.

 

List  of document   filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1/Dt.26.09.2011: The copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite

   party.          

Ex.B2/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the Domestic Gas connection Cylinder

    verification List.

Ex.B3/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to

    the 2^nd opposite party with the customer card list.

Ex.B4/Dt.31.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

    opposite party.

Ex.B5/Dt.05.07.2009: Domestic customer cardno.994 of Thiru.R.Muthukrishnan issued by

    the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B6/Dt.28.05.2001: TV Form issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd to

   Mr.Muthukrishnan.

Ex.B7/Dt.05.07.2001: Indane customer subscription voucher of the said Thiru.

   R.Muthukrishnan given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B8/Dt.29.10.1997:The Xerox copy of the Passport of the said Thiru.R.Muthukrishnan.

Ex.B9/Dt.04.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party

    To the complainant.

Ex.B10/Dt.6.10.2011:Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the District Supply

   and Consumer Protection Officer, Nagapattinam.

Ex.B11/Dt.8.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the

   District Collector – cum – Chairman of the District Consumer  

   Protection Council, Nagapattinam.

Ex.B12/Dt.10.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the another letter sent by the complainant’s

      lawyer to the District Collector – cum – Chairman of the District

     Consumer Protection Council, Nagapattinam. copy to 1^st opposite

     party.

 

 

Ex.B13/Dt.12.10.2011:The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

    opposite party, with the ration card and voter id of the complainant.

Ex.B14/Dt.08.11.2011:The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to

                                         the 2^nd opposite party, copy to the 1^st opposite part.

Ex.B15/Dt.  Nil             : The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the R.Muthukrishnan to the 1^st

     opposite party.

Ex.B16/Dt.23.12.2011:The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said R.Muthukrishnan to

     the1^st opposite party.

Ex.B17/Dt.09.01.2012: The Xerox copy of the Affidavit and writ petition  filed by

     Thiru.Muthukrishnan against the Indian Oil corporation Ltd,

     Chennai and 1^st opposite party in W.P.No.1146/2012 on the file of

     the  Madras High Court.

Ex.B18/Dt.01.02.2012: The copy of the notice of hearing by the Asst. Registrar(Writs) on
                                      W.P.No.1146/2012

 

Ex.B19/Dt.28.01.2012: The Xerox copy of the Notice of hearing sent by the said

      Muthukrishnan to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai and the

      1^st opposite party.

Ex.B20/Dt.29.02.2012: Xerox copy of the notice sent by the Thiru.Muthukrishnan to the 1^st

     opposite party.

Ex.B21/Dt.02.04.2012: Xerox copy of another letter sent by Thiru.Muthukrishnan to the

    1^st opposite party.

Ex.B22/Dt.24.04.2012: The Xerox copy of the Memorandum of the  Appeal in
                                        W.A.no.1130/2012 on the file of the High Court of Mardas.

Ex.B23/Dt.05.05.2012: Xerox copy of the notice sent by the said Muthukrishnan to the 1^st

      opposite party.

Ex.B24/Dt.25.06.2012: Xerox copy of the letter sent by Thiru R.Muthukrishnan  to 

     Mrs.Sirajunisha.

Ex.B25/Dt.20.07.2012: Xerox copy of the notice Reminder No.3 sent by the said

     Muthukrishnan to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B26/Dt.11.09.2012: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the said Muthukrishnan to the

                                         1^st opposite party along with copy of the petition to fix the date of

      hearing on Writ Appeal.

Ex.B27/Dt.05.10.2012: Copy of the Last and Final Reminder sent by the said Thiru.  

               R.Muthukrishnan to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B28/Dt. Nil             : The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Public of the Kattumavadi

     Panchayat to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B29/Dt.03.12.2012:The Xerox copy of the complaint filed by the 1^st opposite party’s

     staff against the complainant before the Thittachery police station.

Ex.B30/Dt.10.10.2012: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by Thiru.R.Muthukrishnan to  

     the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai.

Ex.B31/Dt.31.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the receipt of the complainant given by the

     Sub Inspector of Police, Thittachery P.S.

Ex.B32/Dt.31.12.2012: The Xerox copy of the Miscellaneous Petition against the Indane

    Oil Corporation and 1^st opposite party for interim order.

Ex.B33/Dt.07.01.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to

      the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and 1^st

      opposite party.

Ex.B34/Dt.26.03.2013: Copy of notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the 1^st opposite

     party.

Ex.B35/Dt.07.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to

      the opposite parties.

 

Ex.B36/Dt.14.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by ThiruR. Muthukrishnan to

      the opposite parties.

Ex.B37/Dt.17.12.2011: The Xerox copy of the customer inspection Report Summary of the

     1^st opposite party.

Ex.B38/Dt.   Nil            : The Xerox copy of the LPG Multiple Connection List of the 1^st

     opposite party.

Ex.B39/Dt.29.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the Customer History Card of the 1^st opposite

     Party.

Ex.B40/Dt.04.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

     complainant.

Ex.B41/Dt.30.09.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

      opposite party.

Ex.B42/Dt.03.10.2011: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st

      opposite party.

Ex.B43/Dt.01.11.2012: The Xerox copy of the circular by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

     Madurai Area Office, to all the Gas Connection Distributors.

Ex.B44/Dt.     Nil         : The Xerox copy of the advertisement of notice of the Indian Oil

                                        Corporation Ltd to surrender extra LPG connections.

 

Ex.B45/Dt.23.9.2009: The Xerox copy of the letter of the Government relating to the

                                       Amendment in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply

                                         and Distribution) order 2000.

Ex.B46/Dt.08.10.2013: The Judgment in Writ Appeal No.1130/2012 on the file of High

                                        Court of Judicature Madras.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.41/ 2013

Order Dt:18.07.2014.