Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs JEEVANLAL S. KALAL

THIS appeal arises out of judgment and order dated June 12,1996 passed in complaint No. 1244 of 1992 by the Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (City Forum for short).

FACTS leading to this appeal are as follows. The respondent who was complainant in the aforesaid complaint has applied for gas connection and he was given priority number 6869 on 6.9.86. As he was not provided with gas connection and other persons who had registered their names after him were provided with gas connection, he approached the City Forum by way of aforesaid complaint seeking direction against the appellants to provide him with gas connection and pay him compensation of Rs. 500/-. The complaint was resisted by the appellants. The City Forum has, by its impugned judgment and order, allowed the respondent''s complaint and directed the opponents of the said complaint to provide gas connection to respondent No. 1 (complainant) and pay him Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs. Being aggrieved by the decision of the City Forum, the appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, has preferred this appeal. The defence of the appellant is that the respondent was given intimation about the gas connection but it was he who failed to approach respondent No. 2 for gas connection within 90 days. In any case, it was submitted that respondent could not be considered to be consumer until gas connection is given to him and, therefore, he could not have approached the City Forum by way of this complaint.

The respondent, according to him, was not given gas connection by the appellant and original opponent No. 2. it is, therefore, obvious that he had not yet become consumer of the appellant and said opponent No. 2. He, therefore, could not have approached the City Forum by way of aforesaid complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and original opponent No. 2. The respondent has not hired services of the appellant or original opponent No. 2 for consideration and, therefore, there is no question of his approaching the City Forum alleging deficiency in service on their part. Apart from that it was the respondent who had not approached the original opponent No. 2 within 90 days, after intimation was given to him. The gas connection was sought in 1986 and the complaint is filed in 1992. There is, therefore, bar of limitation also. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the City Forum cannot be sustained.

IN the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the City Forum. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.