GAURI ENTERPRISES vs MADHU PAHUJA

BRIEF facts of the case aboutwhich there does not appear to be any serious dispute are that Smt. Madhu Pahuja, complainant, her husband Mr. Arun Pahuja and the latter''s father Mr. Hari Chand Pahuja were registered as LPG consumers vide Registration Nos. 6830, 6320 and 6286 respectively with M/s. Gauri Enterprises, distributors of Indian Oil Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The complainant, Smt. Madhu Pahuja booked for a refill of LPG cylinder on 1.2.1992. The distributor failed to supply the same inspite of several reminders and personal visits. Ultimately, on 18.2.1992, the complainant was advised to bring the empty cylinder to the godown of the distributor. Instead of supplying filled cylinder, she was asked to surrender her papers and prove her status as a bona fide card-holder of separate family. On 12.3.1992, the complainant was informed that she could not get supply of gas cylinder without proving that she was a bona fide head of a separate family from that of her husband and father-in-law. The complainant approached District Forum-II with the allegation that the distributor was causing her harassment and indulging in unfair trade practice. Besides the distributor the Indian Oil Corporation was also impleaded as opposite party No. 2. Only the distributor, opposite party-1 appeared and contested the case, and pleaded instructions issued by the principle that no family was entitled to keep more than one LPG connection and since the complainant as also her husband and father- in-law residing in the same premises had three separate connections, she was not supplied a refill of LPG Cylinder and she was asked to surrender her papers still she proved that she held the registration bona fide as a separate family.

ON a consideration of the matter, the District Forum referred to Circular No. DAO/64 dated 25.10.1988 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to its gas distributors as well as the action on behalf on various points to be taken by distributors and observed that it was not open to the distributor to suspend or cancel the registration at its own level. It was further observed that Indian Oil Corporation failed to appear in the proceedings and either support the distributor or the consumer. The complaint was allowed and the distributor was directed to resume supply of LPG cylinders to the complainant as per her booking and priority. The distributor was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order, the distributor has filed this appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records.

Mr. M.M. Kalra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation, stated at the outset that he fully supports the action taken by the distributor. He submitted that the action was in accordance with the instructions issued to the distributors.

MR. Raina, learned Counsel for the appellant, stated that the principle that one family should have one LPG connection had long been settled in order to serve a larger number of consumers and possibly no exception thereto could be taken. He pointed out that since the distributor became aware that the complainant as well as her husband and father-in-law held separate registrations and were residing in the same house, the complainant was called upon to show that she represented a separate unit to be entitled to hold a separate registration for LPG purposes. Admittedly on that date the complainant had a common ration card with her husband and children. It was further admitted that the residential address of the three registrants was the same. A separate ration card was obtained only on 26.8.1993 which fact only confirmed the stand of the distributor. Lastly, it was submitted that in any case, the distributor was not guilty of negligence and there was no justification to award a sizable sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation against it. We have carefully scanned the material placed on record. It appears that at some stage certain recommendations were made by a Committee known as Sudha Joshi Committee. The commendations appeared to have considered by the Indian Oil Corporation and Circular dated 25.10.1988 issued to the distributors of Indane Area Office Delhi. The recommendations, which were incorporated in the Circular included domestic gas customers card, refill booking priority number and likely date of supply etc. Also available on record is ''implementation of Sudha Joshi Committee recommendations: Action points by distributors. Under action point Nos. 4.3.2, it was stated as under : "An endorsement on the ration-card to the effect of the consumer having a gas connection should be made mandatory so that consumers do not get more than one connection from the same or different distributors. Wherever Oil Companies became aware of a customer having connection from more than one Oil Company, such customer should be requested to retain only one connection from the Oil Company of their choice and surrender the rest. These customers should invariably be provided DBLs."

(Emphasis supplied) It appears that it is in pursuance of the above recommendation that the distributor took the impugned action. A reading of the recommendation shows (a) that the duty to enforce the decision that one ration card holder keep s one gas connection has been laid on the Oil Company as distinguished from its distributor, and (b) the Oil Company is supposed to "request" the ration card holder to keep one gas connection and surrender the others. The total effect of both these conditions as we read them, is that it was not open to the distributor to have insisted that the complainant surrenders her gas connection and it was deficiency in service on its part to have withheld supplies. All that was open to the distributor was to have informed the Oil Company who was expected to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the consumer and then take appropriate action. Admittedly, the distributor did not report the matter to the Oil Company but took action at its own level. With regard to quantum of compensation we find no case for interference once a person starts running LPG, he supposed using other means such as a pressure stove or kerosene stove or coal, etc. and become totally dependent on LPG. When a consumer is faced with sudden stoppage of supply of refills, his or her lot can be easily imagined. Keeping in view these facts, we find no case for interference in the amount awarded by the District Forum. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. As the time prescribed by the District Forum has elapsed, the appellant is given a further period of four weeks to comply with the order. A copy of the order be furnished to the parties as well as District Forum- II. Appeal dismissed.