KHERIWALA GAS AGENCY vs SAT PAL DAHIYA

WHETHER a distributor of a Liquid Petroleum Gas can cancel a validly registered connection of a consumer on the sole arbitrary ground that the latter''s signatures did not tally with those on the subscription voucher? This is the solitary surviving question in this appeal.

M/s. Kheriwala Gas Agency, Sonepat appeals against the order of the District Forum, Sonepat partly allowing the complaint of the respondent-consumer and granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- only. The facts merit notice in brevity and with relevance only to the surviving question because one aspect of the complainant''s case was rejected by the District Forum and no cross appeal has been preferred on his behalf. It is common ground that the respondent-consumer was registered with the appellant-Agency for the supply of gas cylinder and he had requested for a double bottle connection which was arbitrarily and unnecessarily refused. It was the case that the complainant had repeatedly visited the agency office for the second cylinder and has been harassed on one pretext or another and neither was the second cylinder given nor the registration fee refunded. A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed as relief. The appellants in their written statement admitted that the respondent was their consumer bearing No. K-6515. It was however, pleaded that the double bottle connection duly booked had to be issued as per instructions of their Principal M/s. Indian Oil Corporation according to turn after maturity and not at the discretion of the distributor. All allegations of any unfair trade practice or arbitrary action or any loss suffered by the complainant were denied.

The parties led detailed oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. On the basis of the same District Forum first held that the claim of the complainant with regard to the inspection fee of Rs. 10/- could not be allowed and was rejected. However, as regards the double bottle connection it held after exhaustive discussion of the material that the appellants had unauthorisedly and unjustifiably cancelled the connection on the tenuous ground that the signatures of the complainant Sat Pal Dahiya on the double bottle connection differs on the original subscription voucher slip. Holding the same unjustifiable if not malafide it was directed that the double bottle gas connection be released to the consumer and compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- be paid.

MR. Jaswant Jain the learned Counsel for the appellants has with great persistence attempted to project the untenable case of the appellants. It was argued that the appellants were justified in comparing the signatures and if they were of the view that the same do not tally they could forthwith cancel the connection. It was the stand that the agents-distributors have to ensure about the identity of the consumer and in case of doubt they are entitled to cancel the Liquid Petroleum Gas facility. Despite the persistence with which the appellant''s case was presented we are unable to detect any modicum of merit therein. Though being pin-pointed repeatedly Mr. Jain could not point any thing in the Liquid Petroleum Gas Manual which would even remotely provide that if in view of the distributor there was a discrepancy in signatures he could forth-rightly cancel the valid, and these days the very valuable gas connection of a consumer. It ultimately had to be conceded that no statutory provision or any instruction or even a paragraph in the Manual warranted the cancellation of a connection on the mere allegation of some variation in signatures.

IN fairness to Mr. Jain we must notice his tall stand that the appellant distributors are entitled to cancel a gas connection on the purported ground of a minor variation in the signatures of the consumer is plainly untenable. It is true that the distributors may have a duty to see that the Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders are supplied only to the duly registered consumers and not to any other unauthorised person. However, this does not include within its sweep the power to forth-rightly cancel a connection on the basis of any specious doubt about the identity of the signatures. The same has necessarily to be resolved by properly verifying that the cylinder is being delivered to the person in whose name the connection had been duly registered. This is not to be done on the mere ipsi-dixit of the distributor that according to him signatures of the consumer on two documents are not identical. It perhaps deserves highlighting that the Liquid Petroleum Gas distributors are not bankers who can refuse encashment of a cheque in view of discrepancy in signatures. At the very highest they have to verify the credentials or the identification of the consumer by some reasonable mode. The District Forum was very right in disappearing the conduct of the appellants'' employees as if they were impeccable handwriting experts who could determine the identity of a person on that score alone. Equally the District Forum was right in its view that the subscription voucher slips do not necessarily have to bear the signatures of the consumer and in case of illiterate persons these may be thumb marked or may bear signatures in the so many of the regional languages and perhaps an authority can also be given to another to sign on the principal''s behalf. Therefore, in such a situation the identity of signatures looses all relevance and the more so when the employees of the distributors can not be raised to the level of unerring hand-writing experts. In a judgment of affirmance it seems wasteful to elaborate the matter any further. It is wholly unnecessary to retread the same ground which the District Forum in its detailed order has conspicuously covered. It more than amply suffices to record that we agree with the line of reasoning and the conclusion of the District Forum both on the merits of this issue as also on the quantum of compensation granted. On an over all appraisal of the whole matter one must conclude that a distributor of Liquid Petroleum Gas can not cancel a validly registered connection of a consumer on the sole arbitrary ground that the tatter''s signatures do not tally with those on the subscription voucher.

IN the wake of the aforesaid conclusion the appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. Since no appearance has been put in on behalf of the Respondent we decline to burden the appellants with any costs. Appeal dismissed.