Dharam Chand vs MANDEEP GAS SERVICE

BY this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short'' the Act''), the complainant-appellant questions the correctness of the order dated January 8,1992 passed by the District Forum, Ferozepore in Complaint Case No. 42 of 1991 whereby his complaint has been dismissed on the ground that he is not a "consumer" under the Act.

FOR the sake of convenience, the Appellant and the respondent shall be referred to herein as the complainant and the opposite-party respectively. The facts leading to this appeal are in a very narrow compass. It has been alleged in the complaint that when the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore invited applications for releasing L.P.G. connections in the year 1982, the complainant submitted his application for LPG connection. A list was prepared and by draw of lots his name figured at serial No. 3246. Nearly seven years thereafter, he came to know that many other persons junior to him had been supplied such connections and he had been designedly ignored. Aggreived thereby, the complainant protested to the opposite-party who told him that the firm would not release the LPG connection, and in case he was still anxious to get the same, he would have to purchase gas-stove (chulha) at exorbitant price. The complainant then approached the District Forum and sought a direction to the opposite party for releasing his gas connection. On receipt of notice, Smt. Navjot Kaur, proprietor of M/s. Mandeep Gas Service, Ferozepore appeared before the District Forum and made a statement that the complainant never got his name registered with the firm nor he ever deposited any amount with it and that the complainant was not a "consumer" under the Act. In support of their respective stands, the parties adduced evidence.

The District Forum, relying on a decision of the Karnataka State Commission in Vinayaka Agencies and Another v. D.N. Sridhar, II (1991) CPJ 295, dismissed the complaint, while observing in the following terms : - "...when the complainant had not paid anything either to the opposite-party or the Indian Oil Corporation, neither purchased goods nor hired its services for consideration, he was not a consumer. Case of the present complainant is squarely covered by the decision referred to above. Since he is not covered by the definition of "consumer" as envisaged in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is liable to be dismissed."

ACCORDING to the order under appeal and the conclusion quoted above would show that the matter was considered alternatively either as one for purchase of goods or for hiring of services. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be manifest that the present case primarily is one of hiring of services and in no way purchase of any goods and existence of any defect therein. The District Forum has completely erred in not having viewed the issue as of hiring of services. The matter does not require any detailed discussion as the National Commission has already decided a similar matter in Mis. Mohindra Gas Enterprise v. Jagdish Poswal& Ors., (1993) I CTJ 108 (NCDRC). and observed as under : - "When the Petroleum Corporation itself does not claim that it is selling any goods to the customers, it is futile to argue that the customer of L.P. Gas connection is a purchaser of goods. If no payment is made at the time of registration, it does not mean that a person getting himself registered for a gas connection with the distributor is not hiring any service. ''Service'', as defined in Sub-clause (o) of Clause (1) of Section 2, means "service of any description which is made available to potentional users." The consumer who hires a service has been defined in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii). ACCORDING to the definition, it is not necessary that consideration should be paid at the time of hiring of service. If the transaction is supported by consideration which has been paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment even then it will be a valid consideration for the hiring of service. The present case is one, the payment of part consideration was deferred till the gas connection was released."

In the circumstances, with the deepest deference we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Karnataka State Commission in Vinayaka Agencies & Another''s case (supra) that the complainant is not a consumer. Once it is so held, the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum is set aside.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the persons formally registering for the release of LPG connection with the authorized dealers are "consumers" within the ambit of its definition under the Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint on the preliminary ground that the complainant was not a "consumer" under the Act. Consequently, the matter is now remanded back to the District Forum for trial of the complaint on merits. IN view of these circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.