CC Filed on 19.10.2010
Disposed on 05.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 05th day of August 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLET. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 222/2010
Between:
Dr. Uday Bhaskar, S/o. K. Obulappa, Aged about 31 years, R/o # 1079/A, “NALANDA” 11th Cross, Swarna Nagar, K.G.F, Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. K.V. Srinivas & others) | ….Complainant |
V/S Sri. V.S. Krishnamurthy, Aged about 65 years, Proprietor, Indane Gas Distributor, Murthy Gas Agency, Station Road, Oorgaum, K.G.F – 563 120. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy & others) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that the complainant intended to get the gas connection from the Opposite Party and for that purpose, he gave the necessary application along with the ration card with his residential address. The OP after verification of the documents and after conducting the spot inspection orally agreed to install the gas connection to the complainant. Without any valid reasons, the OP has not given the gas connection and he has written on the ration card in red ink as “connection cancelled”. The attitude of the OP is not according to the law and because of such writing, the complainant is not able to get gas connection from any other Gas Agency. Due to this uncalled for act of the OP, the complainant is to put to inconvenience and he is unable to get the gas connection for his use. The complainant is living separately from his parents and he is in need of separate gas connection. Hence this complainant is filed for directing the OP to install gas connection to the complainant.
2. The OP has filed objections contending that after the complainant gave application for gas connection it was verified and found that there was gas connection in the name of the complainant’s father Sri. K. Obulappa and he was drawing cylinder regularly. The said Sri. K. Obulappa has got another commercial gas connection and for that the address given is No. 1079, Nalanda, 11th Cross, Swarna Nagar, Robertsonpet. For that obtaining that gas connection Sri. K. Obulappa has given the ration card, wherein the name of five family members is mentioned and it includes the name of present complainant. As the complainant family is already having two gas connections, the complainant is not entitled for another subsidized gas connection. It is stated that the complainant has obtained that temporary ration card with the same residential address and undertaking letter. After spot inspection by the OP he came to know that the complainant is residing with his father in the same place and they are having one domestic and commercial gas connection and in view of the same the OP has affixed seal as “connection cancelled” on the ration card by the OP staff. As per the rules and regulations of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the customers are not entitled for multiple gas connection and even if they posses, they are forced to surrender one gas connection. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the gas connection. Hence OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service by the OPs?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Affirmative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: According to the complainant, he is living separately from his parents and because of it he had applied for separate gas connection. According to the Opposite Party, the complainant is residing with his father and he is not living separately. The complainant has produced the copy of the undertaking and affidavit given by him to the Opposite Party for obtaining the gas connection, wherein his address is mentioned as No. 1079/A, ‘Nalanda’, 11th Cross, Swarna Nagar. He has produced the copy of his passport whereas the address is mentioned No. 1079, 11th Cross, Swaranagar, Robertsonept, K.G.F. In the ration card issued in the name of the complainant it is mentioned as Swaranagar and it does not show the house number. On the other hand the Opposite Party has produced the copy of the letter written by him to the Rationing Officer, Food & Civil Supplies Department requesting him to inform whether the name of the complainant has been deleted in the ration card of the complainant’s father and to give the details about having separate kitchen and separate living by the complainant from his father’s family, for this letter the office of the Assistant Director, Food & Civil Supplies Department has given the following reply:
1. As per the records of this office, Sri. Uday Bhaskar’s name has been deleted from his father Sri. Obalappa’s Ration card bearing No. BNP 50839043 on 11/04/2011.
2. On spot verification it is found that there is only one kitchen, in the house of Sri. Obalappa and Sri. Uday Bhaskar is living with his parents. The house is provided with AEH No. 720 and general KEB Metter RR No. R2L3668.
Relying on the above material, the Opposite Party contends that the name of the complainant is deleted from the ration card on 11.04.2011 i.e. after he has given the application for obtaining the gas connection. It is contended that as per the spot inspection the complainant is living in the house along with his parents and there is no separate kitchen and because of it, he is not entitled for a separate gas connection. It is seen that the address of the complainant is mentioned in the passport as No. 1079, “Nalanda”, 11th Cross, Swarnanagar. In the declaration and affidavit given by the complainant, it is mentioned as No. 1079/A, “Nalanda”, 11th Cross, Swarnagar. Hence it is clear that the premises where he claims to be residing is same building No. 1079 and the only difference is, he claims he is residing in the part of the building i.e. No. 1079/A. Hence the complainant is not living in any different building and he claims to be living in the same building where his parents are living. The report given by the Food and Civil Supplies Department clearly goes to show, that on verification it was found that there is only one kitchen for that house. Hence the contention of the complainant that he is living separately from his parents is not prima-facie acceptable. Hence the contention of the Opposite Party is acceptable on this point. When the Opposite Party is satisfied on the verification that the complainant is already having separate gas connection for his living along with his parents, the decision of the Opposite Party not to grant fresh connection cannot be said to be unreasonable. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. Hence this point his held against the complainant.
6. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 05th day of August 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
