HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. vs JAINARAYAN BHAIRAVPRASAD AHIR

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of 13th October, 1992 of the State Commission, Maharashtra in Appeal No. 238 of 1991 on its file. The Complainant before the District Forum was the Respondent before the State Commission and is also Respondent in this Revision Petition. The Opposite Party before the District Forum was the Appellant before the State Commission and is Revision Petitioner before us.

AT the outset it may be mentioned that the District Forum had noted from the complaint itself that the complainant had filed the complaint for the welfare and interest of the people of Yavatmal and challenged the justiciability and reasonableness of the demand for Rs. 15/- per gas cylinder. According to the Respondent-Complainant, Rs. 15/- were demanded from him by the Respondent-Opposite Party the local dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The breakup of this demand is as under: (i) Cost of consumer card herein called the booklet. Rs. 2.00 (ii) Cost of the cover for the booklet Rs. 3.00 (iii) Service charges for the mechanic for examining the gas cylinder and the regulator Rs. 10.00

Total Rs. 15.00

IN the light of the recommendations of the Mrs. Sudha Joshi Committee appointed by the Govt. in 1986 the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Commission, Government of India decided in 1987,1988,1991, to introduce a card (booklet in this case) to record periodical inspection and checking of the equipments by trained mechanics. The Government of India in 1987 fixed the price of the card at Rs. 2.00. It was decided that a mandatory system of checking of the equipment at periodical intervals by trained mechanics once in two years should be introduced for which a fee of Rs. 10.00 is to be levied; instructions to this effect were issued by the T.O.C. in 1991. For the safety of the users of L.P. Gas consumers guidelines were to be made available with the Distributors.

THE District Forum, however, held that charging of more money than the actual price of gas cylinder is illegal citing an order of the National Commission in Bharat Traders v. Ram Chander Pandey that the Consumer Forums had jurisdiction to issue instructions against excessive price of goods. In appeal the State Commission held that (i) the charge of Rs. 2/- for the booklet to be issued to the consumers was justified being the cost of printing, (ii) the local dealer could not insist for the purchase by the consumer of a plastic cover for the booklet for Rs. 3.00 each and (iii) he was not entitled to collect Rs. 10.00 as service charges. According to the State Commission "the service has to be rendered to the consumer whenever he requires a service. There cannot be compulsory collection of service charges from each consumer even though he does not reasonably require it." Thus it upheld the order of the District Forum except to the extent that for the supply of the booklet a charge of at Rs. 2/-was permissible.

IT would be self-evident from the narration of facts in paras 3 and 4 above leading to the issue of service card (booklet) and periodical inspection of the L.P.G. equipment that these are additional services provided by the Oil Companies through the dealers to the users of the L.P. Gas. As such a consideration can be demanded for rendering such service.

IT is also to be noted that the Government of India have made it mandatory that there should be bi-annual inspection of the L.P.G. equipment at the customer''s premises. This is a safety precaution which is in the interest of consumer himself. It is therefore, erroneous on the part of the State Commission hold that there cannot be compulsory collection of such service charges from the consumers even if a particular consumer feels that he does not require it. The demand of Rs. 3.00 as the cost of the cover for the booklet was, however, un-authorised and unjustified.

IT is also observed from the order of the District Forum that the Complainant before it had not paid Rs. 13/- (Rs. 10/-as service charges and Rs. 3 /- as the price of the cover of the booklet) to the Opposite Party before it There was thus no allegation by the Complainant that Rs. 13/- were collected from him as observed by the State Commission.

AT the hearing in answer to the specific question by the Bench it was clarified by the Revision Petitioner that no amount had been paid by the Complainant-Respondent to the Revision Petitioner-Opposite Party and he had also not been denied the supply of gas cylinder by the Dealer. In other words there had been no hiring or availing of any service for consideration and therefore, there could be no consumer dispute as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. We are mentioning this only for the guidance of the Consumer Forums in future. In the light of what has been stated above the Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the District Forum and State Commission are set aside. It is made clear that no charge by way of the cover for the booklet can be collected by the Dealer without the consent of the consumer. There is no order as to costs.