CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLIUM vs PAUL THOMAS

THESE appeals are directed against the order passed by the District Forum Kottayam in O.P. No. 84/92.

APPEAL No. 521 /92 was filed by the 1st opposite party and APPEAL No. 525/92 was filed by the 2nd opposite party. Since both appeals arise out of the same order the appeals are heard and disposed of by a common order. Though notices were issued to the respondent complainant in the appeal there is no appearance. The complainant booked for LPG connection with the 1st opposite party on 19-6-84. It is the case of the complainant that 1st opposite party started giving new connections and therefore he made enquiries and found that connection was given to another person. The complainant was also told that connection would be given when other persons'' connection got matured. Subsequently he was directed to book for a new connection again and accordingly he booked for new connection on 6.1.90. The complainants grievance is that no connection was given to him till now based on the old booking or new booking.

T opposiTe parTy did noT file any objecTion. The 2nd opposiTe parTy filed objecTion sTaTing ThaT The complainanT was inTimaTed on maTuriTy To avail of The gas connecTion wiThin 90 days under The cerTificaTe of posTing on 1-9-84, buT he did noT Turn up. In The order under challenge iT is sTaTed ThaT no documenTs were produced To show ThaT inTimaTion of maTuriTy was given To The complainanT. However Learned Counsel argued ThaT as a maTTer of facT inTimaTion was given. He produced a phoTo copy of lisT To prove inTimaTion given under cerTificaTe of posTing. IT is seen complainanT''s name was also included in The lisT. The DisTricT Forum found ThaT even if inTimaTion was given, There was no guaranTee ThaT inTimaTion was received by The complainanT. In ThaT view an order was passed by The DisTricT Forum direcTing The opposiTe parTies To release a new LPG connecTion To The complainanT. The firsT opposiTe parTy was also ordered To pay compensaTion of Rs. 500/-.

IN these appeals, Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the order under challenge is unsustainable. Learned Counsel contended that intimation was given immediately 3 months after the booking under the certificate of posting and all other persons to whom such intimation was given under certificate of posting availed of the connection. He also submitted that it is only in 1990 that the complainant filed the complaint. He also stated as intimation was given long ago the complaint is belated and District Forum was not justified in directing to give new connection to the complainant. The direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 500/- was also challenged. We are satisfied that though letter of intimation was issued to the complainant, there is no guarantee that such letter of intimation was received by the complainant. Complaint was filed after lapse of 6 years and in the circumstances we feel that the award of compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant was not justified. We therefore vacate that part of the order.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant admitted that there is an application for new connection on 6.1.1990 and that application must have got matured by this time. He also expressed willingness to give a new connection on the basis of the booking of 6.1.90. This submission is recorded and the opposite parties are directed to give to complainant a connection within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. THE appeals are disposed of as above. THEre will be no order as to cost. Appeal disposed of.