K. RAMESHBABU vs VIJAYA AGENCIES

-THE appellant herein filed a complaint CD. No 189 of 1993 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari, Elugu. To the said complaint he made one Vijaya Agencies. H.P. Gas Dealers, Canal Road. Eluru-1 as opposite party No. 1 and the Manager (L.P.G.) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Opp. A.U. in Gate. Visakhapatnam as second opposite party. THE case of the complainant was that he applied for L.P.G. connection with the first opposite party dealer in 1984. He was given a Registration No. 4916. In the complaint it was stated that inspite of his approaching the opposite parties and issuing notice, no gas connection was given. He, therefore, filed a complaint to direct the opposite parties to give a gas connection and also pay expenses of Rs. 200/-. THE first opposite party opposed the claim on the ground that this registration number was transferred to one M/s. Viswanath Agencies, Eluru. THE first opposite party came to know that the said Viswanath Agency informed the complainant on 19.4.1995 and requested to avail the gas connection which the complainant failed to do. THE complainant is also not a ''Consumer'' as he merely registered his name for gas connection

THE second opposite party also took a similar plea. THE District Forum instead of deciding the case on merits, relied on the order of the National Commission reported in I (1993) CPJ 90 (NC), R.P. No. 86 of 1992, M/s. Mohindra Gas Enterprises v. Jagdish Poswal and Others, held that since the complainant merely registered his name for gas connection is not a ''Consumer'' and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, this appeal is preferred. It is firstly submitted that the District Forum erred in holding that in the aforesaid decision, M/s. Mohindra Gas Enterprises v. Jagdish Poswal and Others, which is equivalent to I (1993) CPJ 90 (NC), the majority of the members in the said decision held that by merely registration of the name, the person who registers his name is a ''Consumer'' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is maintainable at the instance of the person who registers his name with the gas dealer. The District Forum due to mistake as in the decision reported in the Consumer case it was not specifically and separately mentioned that Mr. Y. Krishan, Member dissented from the majority view. Therefore, the District Forum was under the mistaken impression that the view taken by Mr. Krishan is also the view of the National Commission. It is due to this mistake, the District Forum held that the complainant is not a Consumer and rejected the complaint.

We have gone through the aforesaid decision. The majority of the Members of the National Commission took a view confirming the view of the State Commission wherein it held that a person who registered his name for gas connection is a Consumer and we, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum.

DURING the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed in F.A.I.A. 1406 of 1994 to implead M/s. Viswanath Agencies, Gas Dealers, Near Over Bridge, Eluru, West Godavari District as the first respondent, as it is the case of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the Dealership Registration Number was subsequent to registration was transferred to the dealer and notice was ordered in the said application and the proposed respondent was served, there was no appearance on behalf. We are, therefore, satisfied that the proposed respondent is a necessary and proper party for deciding the controversy between the parties. We, therefore, order that the proposed respondent has to be impleaded as party/respondent in this appeal and consequently as opposite party in the Consumer Dispute. Since the District Forum disposed of the case only on the ground that the complainant is not a ''Consumer'' and has not gone into merits of the case, we remand the matter to the District Forum to dispose of the same on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the complaint ant and to all the opposite parties including the party impleaded now and dispose of the case on merits accordingly. In the result, we allow the appeal. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.