GRAHA AGENCY vs S. VENKATASWAMY

THE complainant''s case is that he applied for a gas connection with M/s. Pattammal Gas Agency, Tambaram. He was informed that he was allotted the gas connection and was instructed to approach the 2nd opposite party M/s. Pararthana Gas Agency. THE 2nd opposite party, without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, transferred the registration to the 3rd opposite party. THE 3rd opposite party refused to give immediate gas connection. Several letters were written, but gas connection was not given. THE non-providing of gas connection amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint for compensation besides a direction to give gas connection.

THE 1st opposite party contended that they are not necessary parties as the transaction is only between the complainant and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Further they have stated that the complainant is already in possession of a gas connection in the name Rajamanickam and as such he is disentitled to have another gas connection. The 2nd opposite party contended that on the point of jurisdiction, the gas connection was transferred to the 3rd opposite party within whose jurisdiction the residence of the complainant is situated. On 1.6.1996 when the house of the complainant was inspected, there was another gas connection available for use which has been given by Sri Moogambigai Gas Agency. Therefore, there was just and proper reason for refusing the gas connection.

The 3rd opposite party contended that as per the rules and regulations, the consumer''s kitchen area should have fire proof roofing or RCC roof and the complainant has failed to fulfil the said mandatory requirement. They further submitted that they are not necessary parties. They also contended that the complainant is already having another gas connection.

THE lower Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and directed them to provide the gas connection within a month and also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with costs of Rs. 500/-. Hence the appeal by the 3rd opposite party in A.P. No. 618/98. THE 2nd opposite party for their part have preferred appeal against the same order, in A.P. 735/98. The point for determination is whether there is deficiency in service as alleged?

THE Point: It is not in dispute that the complainant applied for a gas connection with one Pattammal Gas Agency on 23.8.1989. THE allotment order was issued on 30.4.1996. After the allotment order, when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, on the ground of jurisdiction the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party stating that his application has been transferred to the 3rd opposite party. THE 3rd opposite party refused to give connection. THErefore, the complainant is now before the Forum. THE two main reasons urged by the opposite parties are, (1) that there is already a gas connection available in the house of the complainant; and (2) there is only a thatched roof and, therefore, as per the safety rules, granting the connection to such a house with thatched roof is prohibited. With regard to the first objection, it is clear that the gas connection does not stand in the name of the complainant. Even according to the complainant it is in the name of one Rajamanickam. THE complainant is residing at Door No. 31, Nehru Street, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Vandalur, Chennai. THE voters list has been produced wherein Door No. 31, the complainant is shown as living in that house along with his wife. THEre are no other person shown as living in that house. THE opposite parties have produced a copy of the gas connection voucher which is marked as Ex. B-5. From this we find that the gas connections stands in the name of one Rajamanickam, No. 16, Nehru Street, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Vandalur. This does not tally with the voters'' list. Even otherwise, admittedly, the gas connection is in the name of Rajamanickam and not in the name of the complainant. It is also not shown that the complainant has any other connection in any other name. Thus we find that this objection is not tenable. THE other objection is that there is a prohibition for granting gas connection to houses with thatched roofs. From the "Code of Safety Practice for Domestic LPS Installation" submitted by the opposite parties, we find that there is no such specific prohibition. It only says that the "kitchen or room where the appliance is installed shall be well ventilated so that leakage of gas, if any, during faulty lighting or extinguishing of flame, is swept away by natural draft." One another safety rule provides that "No flammable or combustible material should be stored in the immediate vicinity of the cylinder or in the same room in which it is kept." We do not find there is anything in this Code prohibiting the grant of gas connection to the houses having thatched roofs or specifying that installation should not be done in a room or place where it is covered by thatched roofs. In Ex. B-8 also it is stated that "No shelf of inflammable material on top of the burner." THEre is one other point to be noted. If really there was such a prohibition, how is it stated by the opposite parties that gas connection was granted by Sri Moogambigai Gas Agency in the name of Rajamanickam which is stated to be practically one granted to the complainant. If there was such a rule prohibiting the grant of gas connection to such persons, then it would not have been granted at all in the first instance by Sri Moogambigai Gas Agency in the name of one Rajamanickam. THErefore, in such circumstances, it is clear that these objections are raised by the opposite parties more for the sake of objection than with any real substance. There is inordinate delay in the grant of gas connection to the complainant. The booking was made in the year 1989. The allotment has been made in the year 1996 and till the filing of this complaint in the year 1997, gas connection has not been given. Therefore, it is made out that there is deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party would say that it has been since transferred to the 3rd opposite party because of jurisdiction. The 3rd opposite party is, therefore, bound to grant the gas connection. The order has been passed by the lower Forum that since the transaction is between the complainant on the one part and the opposite parties 2 and 3 on the other and there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3, they both are liable. The 2nd opposite party has not chosen to just restrict his pleading to that effect, but has gone on to say that the complainant has another gas connection in his name and, therefore, he is disentitled to the same. In effect, the opposite parties 2 and 3 are adopting some strategy and have put forward common grounds of defence and oppose the complainant''s request joining forces together. Therefore, the lower Forum rightly found both of them liable to make good the deficiency. We do not see any error in the order of the lower Forum.

CONSEQUENTLY, these two appeals deserve to be dismissed. The same are dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/- in each appeal. It is open to the either of the opposite parties 2 and 3 to grant the gas connection as ordered by the lower Forum. The sum of Rs. 3,000/- awarded as compensation and Rs. 500/- awarded as costs by the lower Forum shall be paid by both the appellants herein viz., opposite parties 2 and 3 in equal moieties to the complainant. Time : 2 months. Appeals dismissed.