BANK OF INDIA vs S N Chawla

THIS appeal is by the opposite party Cheema Gas Service against the order of the District Forum, Fatehpur Sahib dated February 24,1998 whereby the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 500/ - as costs to the complainant.

THE complainant booked L.P.G. connection with the opposite party vide Registration No. 4500 dated 8.9.1989. The connection was not released till 31.10.1997. The complainant applied for allotment of Gas Connection which was well within the policy of Indian Oil Corporation. Public notice appeared in the Tribune dated May 28, 1993 for re - registration of intimation letters yet to be honoured for Indane connection. The notice reads as under : ''It is noticed that many of the intimation letter holders have not been able to avail of the Indane gas connection since they have not reported within the validity period of 90 days. In order to help such intimation letter holders who have not been able to avail of the connection for one reason or the other, it has been decided to revalidate the same after assessing the total number of such floating intimation letters. Hence all such intimation letter holders who could not avail of the connections are requested to kindly contact alongwith original Registration Slip and Intimation Letter, the distributor who has issued the intimation letter for re -registration. After assessing the total number of such intimation letter holders, further action will be advised individually by our distributor. Intimation letter holders who do not respond to this advertisement within in a period of 60 days from the date of advertisement will not be considered for release of connection against time -barred intimation letters issued prior to the date of advertisement.''

After taking notice of the aforesaid Public Notice, the complainant visited the opposite party for release of gas connection against the booking, but it was not released. The complainant also alleged that the L.P.G. connection had been withheld without any reasonable cause.

IN rebuttal, the opposite party besides denying all the allegations, inter alia, asserted that the complainant was not a consumer. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum accepted the complaint and passed the impugned order. The opposite party preferred appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. In appeal the opposite party - appellant reiterated that the complaint was time - barred and the complainant was not a consumer. On merits, it was agitated that the complainant did not respond to the letter dated 8.6.1993 sent under Postal Certificate and the advertisement dated 28.5.1993 appearing in the Tribune. The complainant was guilty of his own act and conduct as he did not respond to the letter and advertisement. The opposite party had to release the connection to the persons lower in priority number than the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party/appellant.

THE Counsel for the appellant relied upon a case Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Jeevan Lal S. Kalal & Anr., I (1997) CPJ 578, Gujarat State Commission, wherein it was held that the respondent had not hired the services of the appellant for consideration. It is argued that the complainant by merely applying for the gas connection is not a consumer. The Counsel for complainant/respondent argued that the complainant did not receive the letter from the appellant/opposite party qua the release of gas connection. When the turn of the complainant came the opposite party was required to send the intimation to the complainant. The Counsel argued that the opposite party had failed to produce on record any intimation having ever been sent on this account to the complainant.

WE have heard the Counsels for both the parties on facts and on legal proposition. The preliminary objection, that the complainant was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the Act for the reason that the case relates to registration of a release of a gas connection. The complainant had not hired the services of the appellant for consideration. Ex. A -4 Public Notice issued by the Indane Distributors and Marketing speaks that the Registered Prospective Consumer since waiting could contact the dealer within 60 days. The complainant being Registered Prospective Consumer was well within his right to approach the opposite party for L.P.G. connection within stipulated period. As stated in the Notice, the Public Notice was issued as per directions of Public Sector Oil Industry. Ex. A4 established the fact that M/s. Cheema Gas Service was a approved dealer for distribution of L.P.G. as per policy approved by the Public Sector Oil Industry. We take it that the dealer was bound by the instructions from the principal from time -to - time. As the insertion of the Public Notice in the Newspaper is answer to the preliminary objection on which date part of cause of action occurred. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the complaint was time -barred is rejected.

COMING to the merits of the case, we have scanned the records on file, we find the L.P.G. connection was booked vide Registration No. 4500 dated 8.9.1999 with the opposite party (Ex. C -2). Now referred to a priority Nos. 4767 and 5044 (Ex. C -3 and Ex. C -4). The L.P.G. connections were released to them on 24.9.1992 and 30.12.1992 respectively by passing over priority No. 4500 of the complainant depriving the complainant to get his L.P.G. connection on his turn. On this fact alone, the complainant had the right to agitate the matter before the Consumer FORA. Records show that the L.P.G. connections were not released on the basis of priority list maintained by the dealer. The opposite party has failed to give reasons much less cogent for disturbing the priority list in releasing the L.P.G. connections. Since releasing of L.P.G. connection was the controlled item, it became more necessary, the complainant being Registered Prospective Consumer would have been called upon to submit his priority letters for release of gas connection he was entitled to get. The consumer has a right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice of unscrupulous exploitation under the Consumer Protection Act. We are satisfied that the grievance of the complainant was justified as the complainant was not given the L.P.G. connection on his turn in the seniority list maintained by the agency holder and the complainant was deprived of his right. An application for additional evidence was filed alongwith the appeal for producing A - 3, an extract from the despatch register in the form of L.P.G. that the complainant was called upon to get the connection on his turn. At the most, it can be said that some letter was addressed to the complainant, but what were the comments, no presumption can be drawn. Furthermore such evidence was already available with the appellant and could be produced before the District Forum. The application is rejected.

THE ratio of the aforesaid decision in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Jeevan Lal S. Kalal case is not applicable as in that case there was no plea of disturbing the seniority. For the reasons recorded above, we find no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/ -. The order of the District Forum upheld.