Tripura

StateCommission

A/15/2016

Shri. Swapan Banik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tripura Natural Gas Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.R Barman, Mr. R.Banik, Miss. S.Dhar

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

TRIPURA

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE U.B. Saha,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/14/2016

 

 

 

 

1. Shri Dilip Chandra Ghosh,

S/o Lt. Manindra Chandra Ghosh,

Prop: Joy Gopal Mistanna Bhandar,

L.N. Bari Road, Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura.

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Complainant.

 

                                                           

 

 

                   Vs

 

 

 

1.Tripura Natural Gas Company Limited,

33, Office Lane, P.S. West Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura,

(Represented by its Managing Director)

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/15/2016

 

 

 

1.Shri Swapan Banik,

S/O Lt. Ramkrishna Banik,

Prop: Janapriya Mistanna Bhandar,

P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S. Amtali,

Dist. West Tripura.

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Complainant.

 

                                                           

 

 

                   Vs

 

 

 

 

1.Tripura Natural Gas Company Limited,

33, Office Lane, P.S. West Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura,

(Represented by its Managing Director)

 

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants             :         Mr. Purushattam Roy Barman, Adv.

For the Respondent           :         Mr. Paramartha Datta, Adv. & Manager (Marketing), TNGCL.

(Represented on behalf of TNGCL)

 

Date of hearing                  :         15.11.2016.

Date of delivery of Judgment:      30.11.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

Both these appeals have been filed by the aforesaid appellant-complainants under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.CC-18/2015 and Case No.CC-20/2015 respectively, whereby the Ld. District Forum partly allowed the complaint petition of the appellant-complainants. As the facts involved in both the cases are similar and the questions of law involved are also same, both the appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.  

2. Heard Mr. Purushattam Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainants in both the appeals and Mr. Joyjeet Chaudhuri, Manager, Tripura Natural Gas Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as TNGCL) appearing on behalf of the respondent, TNGCL in absence of their Ld. engaged Counsel Mr. Paramartha Datta.
3. The facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Both the appellants filed their petitions under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum which were registered as Case No.CC-18/2015 and Case No.CC-20/2015 respectively.

4. The allegations of the appellant-complainants are that being the consumer they had taken the Natural Gas supply from the respondent, TNGCL and used to pay the bill against the consumption of natural gas as given by the respondent. They were never defaulter.
5. All on a sudden, the respondent, TNGCL enhanced the price of natural gas and issued a demand notice on 18.01.2014 asking the appellant of the Appeal No.14/2016 Shri Dilip Ch. Ghosh to pay an amount of Rs.11,554/- and subsequent thereto, also issued a debit note dated 27.09.2014 demanding Rs.82,223/- in respect of consumption of natural gas by the said appellant for the period from 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2014.
6. Similarly, by a communication dated 27.09.2014, the respondent informed the appellant of Appeal No.15/2016 Shri Swapan Banik that he is liable to pay Rs.1,36,241/- for the period from 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2014 and with the aforesaid communication, a debit note dated 25.09.2014 for Rs.1,36,241/- was enclosed. Both the appellant-complainants have paid their respective bill against the consumption of natural gas at the rate which was applicable at the relevant time and challenged the action of the respondent by way of filing the complaint cases before the Ld. District Forum for cancelling the respective debit notes.
7. The respondent, TNGCL appeared as opposite party and filed written statement denying the claim of the appellant-complainants. In its written statement, the respondent has contended that the TNGCL supply the natural gas and the rate of gas is fixed by the GAIL-India and Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India. The respondent distributes the natural gas in Agartala and other areas only getting service charges. It has nothing to do in respect of rising of price of natural gas as the rate is fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas.
8. Ld. District Forum considered the rival contention raised by the parties in their respective pleadings in which the following points are taken up for determination and also for deciding the cases:-

1. Whether the rising of gas price after lapse of 10 years be justified or not?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get relief in respect of deficiency of service by TNGCL?

9. Both the appellant-complainants and respondent had produced documentary and oral evidence.
10. The appellant-complainants produced the demand notice, communication, bills, demand draft, tax invoice (all photocopies). Both the appellant-complainants examined themselve as witness in their respective case. On the other hand, the respondent produced the correspondence between the Senior Manager, Finance and the Manager, GAIL, Rules of TNGCL. Another correspondence was also produced by the respondent, TNGCL and examined one Shri Joyjeet Chaudhuri, Manager, TNGCL as O.P.W.1.
11. Upon consideration of the evidences, adduced by the respective party, the Ld. District Forum partly allowed the cases of the appellant-complainants, directing the respondent not to increase the rate of gas price for the period from 2005 to 2011 and also to cancel the debit note demanding for enhanced price from 2005 to 31^st March, 2012 and the appellant-complainants were directed to pay the enhanced price from 1^st April, 2012 onwards, the respondent, TNGCL was directed to issue fresh debit note and realize the amount of enhanced price from April, 2012 to 2015 and thereafter.
12. The respondent did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the payment made by the appellant-complainants in respect of 2005 to 2011 shall not be increased and the payment done is to be accepted by the respondent, TNGCL and also to cancel the debit note demanding for enhanced gas price from 2005 to 31^st March, 2012.

But the appellant-complainants have challenged the judgment of Ld. District Forum, on the ground, inter alia, that they have to pay the enhanced price from 1^st April, 2012 onwards and the respondent is to issue fresh debit note and realize the amount of enhanced price from April, 2012 to 2015 and thereafter by the aforesaid appeals.

13.     Mr. P. Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-complainants has submitted that the appellants are partly dissatisfied with the decision of the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the appellant-complainants shall have to pay the enhanced price from 1^st April, 2012 to 2015 and thereafter for consumption of natural gas at the enhanced rate, which had been enhanced subsequently. He has further submitted that the very logic of the case which the Ld. District Forum has held is that the respondent cannot ask the appellant-complainants to pay the bill at the enhanced rate for the period of 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2012 on the ground of rising of gas price after lapse of 10 years and also held that the TNGCL being supplier had failed to provide proper service in this regard. The same logic is also applicable in respect to the subsequent period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014. He has further contended that the correspondence between the GAIL India and the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas with the respondent has no binding upon the appellant-complainants as they are neither the consumers of the GAIL nor Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, rather they are the consumer of the respondent, TNGCL. He has further contended that it would appear from the letter of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas dated 5^th June, 2006 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India that the price of AMP gas was increased and the said letter had given effect from the mid-night of 5^th/6^th June, 2006 and from the other letter also addressed by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas dated 31^st May, 2010, it is clear that there was an increase of gas price from 2005, whereas, the respondent had come with a demand notice and debit note in the year 2014, when the appellant-complainants have already paid the bill raised by the respondent, TNGCL up to 2013. According to him, the respondent can claim the enhanced rate from the date of issuing the demand notice in the month of September, 2014. He has also contended that the Ld. District Forum committed error while stating that the appellant-complainants have to pay the enhanced price from 1^st April, 2012 as it falls within the period of 3 years considering that this is a money demand, but the same principal cannot be applied as the appellant-complainants have already cleared the bill for that period raised by the respondent. He has further submitted that the facts remain that the appellant-complainants were not aware regarding the enhanced price of gas till the date of receiving the demand notice in September, 2014 and they have cleared their bill before issuance of demand notice. Thus, claiming money at the enhanced price with retrospective effect is not permissible at all. Therefore, it would be proper to quash the direction of the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the appellant-complainants will have to pay the enhanced price from 1^st April, 2012 onwards and the respondent is to issue fresh debit note and realize the amount of enhanced price of gas from April, 2012 to 2015 and thereafter.
14. On 08.11.2016, Mr. P. Datta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Manager (Marketing), TNGCL would argue the case. Accordingly, on the date of hearing, Manager (Marketing), TNGCL, Mr. Joyjeet Chaudhuri appeared and argued the case.  Mr. Chaudhuri, the Manager (Marketing), TNGCL contended that as the GAIL had enhanced the rate of the gas with retrospective effect, the respondent had claimed the same. He also submitted that the respondent had no other alternative except to increase the rate of gas as determined by the GAIL and Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas.
15. We have perused the impugned judgment and also considered the submission of the parties through their respective Counsel and the representative. It is admitted position that the respondent demanded the enhanced price of gas after lapse of 10 years i.e. after clearance/payment of the bills by the appellant-complainants raised by the respondent. It also appears from the record that the correspondences of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas were issued in the year 2005 and 2006, whereas, the respondent decided to take action in the year 2014. For the lapse of the respondent, the appellant-complainants cannot suffer. More so, had it been known to the consumer-appellants at the relevant time of enhencement the price of gas in the year 2005 and 2006, then, the appellant-complainants could have taken a decision for disconnecting the supply of gas line on the ground that it would not be possible to bear the expenses of gas on their part at the enhanced rate. All on a sudden, almost after 10 years, the respondent enhanced the rate of gas with retrospective effect and demanded the same to pay by the appellant-complainants, which is wholly improper and unreasonable and an unfair trade practice.
16. We have also perused the letter of the Industry & Commerce Minister, Government of Tripura dated 23^rd June, 2014 addressed to the Minister of State, Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, wherein, it appears that the respondent, TNGCL had received a letter from the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India dated 7^th January, 2014 forwarded by GAIL (India) to charge non-AMP price of $4.2/MMBTU for all commercial & industrial consumers of TNGCL with retrospective effect from 01.07.2005. It also appears from the aforesaid letter of State Minister that he requested the Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India for reducing the price of gas, but the said request was not considered and finally turned down. It also appears from the records that for the first time by communication bearing Reference No.TNGCL/MGT/Gas Pricing/2014-1/C-62 dated 15.03.2014, TNGCL, the respondent  herein, informed the appellant-complainants regarding the charge of non-AMP price for all commercial & industrial consumers of TNGCL with retrospective effect from 01.07.2005, and not only that, thereafter, the respondent issued another communication dated 01.04.2014 informing that the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India had introduced Domestic Natural Gas Pricing Guidelines, 2014, wherein it is mentioned that the guidelines shall be applicable for 5 years with effect from 01.04.2014. Therefore, it can be said that the appellant-complainants were not aware regarding the enhanced price of gas before the month of March, 2014. As TNGCL communicated on 01.04.2014 informing regarding the introduction of the Domestic Natural Gas Pricing Guidelines, 2014, at best, they can claim the enhanced price from the month of April, 2014, not before that.    
17. The Ld. District Forum has specifically held that the increasing of gas price after elapse of 10 years is to be improper service. If the respondent is to take care about the current market price, then the information should be supplied to the consumers time to time, which was not done. Ld. District Forum should not direct the appellant-complainants to pay the enhanced price of the gas from April, 2012 to 2015 and the respondent to issue the demand notice. There is no doubt that within a period of 3 years money can be demanded subject to entitlement. In the instant case, the respondent no where stated that the appellant-complainants are defaulter rather the case of the respondent is that as the GAIL and Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas has enhanced the rate of gas, they are claiming the same. But such a claim is not permissible after 10 years when the rate of gas was enhanced from the year 2005 and 2006 with retrospective effect and the claim was made only in the year 2014 on the basis of the letter of GAIL and Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India.
18. According to us, the analogy on the basis of which the Ld. District Forum has come to the conclusion that the appellants are not liable to pay the enhanced price of natural gas for the period of 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2012, the same analogy is also applicable for the subsequent period as the appellant-complainants have already paid their respective bill raised by the respondent. The respondent can claim the enhanced rate on and from April, 2014, but not prior to that.
19. In the light of what is discussed above, the judgment and order of the Ld. District Forum in Case No.CC-18/2015 and Case No.CC-20/2015 to the effect that the appellant-complainants will have to pay the enhanced price of gas from 1^st April, 2012 onwards and the respondent is to issue fresh debit note and realize the amount of enhanced price from April, 2012 to 2015 and thereafter is modified to the extent that the appellant-complainants are not liable to pay the enhanced price of gas as ordered by the Ld. District Forum, but the respondent can claim the enhanced price of gas from April, 2014 and accordingly, issue fresh debit note for realising the enhanced amount.
20. In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.             

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura