KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

            APPEAL: 831/2003

                              JUDGMENT DATED: 14-09-2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

Athira Gas Agency,

5/1716-A, Panchama School Road,                 : APPELLANT

Calicut – 6.

(By Adv:Sri.Shyam Padman)

          Vs.

1.      Ummer Kutty Kariyil,

5/35, ‘Fajr’,

P.O. Guruvayoorappan College,

Kozhikkode.

2.      M/s Hindusthan Petroleum-

Corporation Ltd.,

17, Jamshedji Tata Road,                        : RESPONDENTS

Mumbai – 400 020.

3.      M/s Hindusthan Petroleum-

Corporation Ltd., Tatapuram,

P.O.Box. No.1601,

Ernakulam, Cochin-14.

                                                    JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party/dealer in OP.320/01 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The appellant and the 2^nd opposite party are under orders to deliver LPG to the complainant at his residence whenever demanded and the 1^st opposite party/appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.

2. The case of the complainant is that he is a registered consumer with the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized LPG dealer.  The complainant is residing in the same address as it was at the time of registration.  It is alleged that the 1^st opposite party who used to supply the LPG in time subsequently adopted delaying tactics and later stopped supplying gas.

3. The 1^st opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant is a registered consumer of the opposite party.  It is further stated that the complainant had originally booked for connection with M/s Soorya Gas Agency and subsequently after the starting of the dealership by the 1^st opposite party the booking was transferred to the 1^st opposite party. It was so transferred under the belief that he is a resident within the jurisdiction of Kozhikkode Corporation.  It was not disclosed that he is residing in Olamanna Panchayath, outside corporation limits.  The distance from the dealer to the complainant is above 15 Kms.  The area of operations sanctioned to the 1^st opposite party is strictly within the Kozhikode Corporation limits.  M/s Surabhi Gas service has been appointed for the purpose of serving customers residing outside the corporation limits.  The complainant was made aware of the above facts.  It is for the complainant to apply for transferring the connection.  No additional expenses will be incurred by the consumer for the transfer.  The complainant was requested by the opposite party to submit an application for transfer of disconnection to Surabhi Gas Service, Chevayur.  But the complainant has not complied with the above request. 

4. The rest of the opposite parties did not contest the matter.

5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 to P13 and R1 to R3.

6. The Forum has found that the opposite parties are bound to make home delivery in the address of the consumer as per clause 8 of the Liquid Petroleum Gas (Regulation, Supply and Distribution) order 1993.  It is further noted that after registration the opposite party has delivered LPG to the complainant only two times.  It is also pointed out that no dealer can refuse home delivery without prior written permission of the oil company.

7. The opposite party has produced only documents pertaining to the appointment from the 1^st opposite party as the concerned dealer and the related documents with respect to the jurisdiction of the opposite party.  The opposite party has also not tendered evidence.  There is no documentary evidence to establish that the opposite party had directed the complainant to submit a requisition for getting the registration transferred to Soorya Gas Agency.  On the other hand the complainant has produced copies of the complaints filed by him before the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Complainant has also produced the replies received from the 2^nd opposite party/Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd that all efforts will be made to solve the problem at the earliest.  The complainant has also produced letter from the 1^st opposite party dated:1/7/1998 directing him to produce the ration card for verification and stamping.  There is nothing to show that the 1^st opposite party had directed the complainant to apply for transferring his registration to Surabhi Gas agency.  All the same we find that the 1^st opposite party has filed his version in August 2001.  There is nothing to show that even after filing of the version that the complainant has taken any steps to transfer his registration to Surabhi Gas Agency.  In the circumstances we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party also in not properly intimating the complainant as to the needed transfer of his registration to Surabhi Gas Agencies.  Evidently the complainant has a registered consumer from 1995.  Complainant might have put up much difficulty due to non supply of LPG.  There is also no reason to why the complainant has not taken steps even after receiving the version of the 1^st opposite party to see that the registration is transferred to Surabhi Gas Agencies.  In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum is liable to be modified to a certain extent.  In the circumstances the order of the Forum is modified as follows:-

8. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- to the complainant.  The order as to costs is sustained.  The 1^st opposite party will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from today (date of the order of this commission).

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.