KRISHAN MURARI vs NAVJYOTI GAS SERVICE

THIS appeal is substantially concluded in favour of the consumer appellant by our recent decision in 1993 C.P.C. 502 Vijay Kumar Managing Director v. M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory Delhi and Others.

FOR the limited purpose of adjudicating on the quantum of compensation, to which the successful complainant appellant was entitled, it is unnecessary to delve into the facts and merits too deeply. It suffices to mention that the appellant admittedly held a double bottle connection for the supply of L.P.G. through the respondents M/s. Navjoyti Gas Service. On the 7th of December, 1992 refil cylinder No. 71797 was issued to him, which within four to five dates thereafter stopped to supply Gas. On weighing the same it was found to be 27 kgs. only and a complaint was lodged with the respondents, who desired that he said cylinder be left at their premises for checking purposes which was done. Inevitably, the appellant opted for another refil against the second cylinder which in turn was found to be equally defective and patently short in weight. The second complaint was again lodged with the respondents without any meaningful redress and instead the delivery of another gas cylinder was further delayed till the 22nd of January, 1993. Aggrieved thereby the competent was preferred seeking compensation to the turne off Rs. 11,000/-. On notice being issued, the respondents admitted the broad factual position. It was the case that the first cylinder on inspection having apparently been found defective and underweight was forwarded to the bottling plant for examination. It was also pleaded that the second refil was issued and that too had to be taken back as defective being under weight.

The District Forum found in favour of the appellant of the factual aspect. It concluded that the first cylinder was under weight and had admittedly been received back and forwarded to the Indian Oil Corporation for testing and investigation. Equally the second cylinder supplied was again under weight and with considerable difficulty and hassles. The appellant through the intervention of the Beopar Mandal and the Inspector of the Weight and Measure had its weight checked and the detailed report with regard there to clearly indicated the shortage which was brought to the notice of the authorities. It further found that the consumer had been virtually denied the gas supply from the 7th of December, 1992 till the 22nd January, 1993 and further the first cylinder has not been replaced by the respondent. Apart from granting marginal relief with regard to the future supply, a somewhat paltry compensation of Rs. 500/- only was awarded.

IT deserve highlighting that the respondent Gas Agency apparently on a week footing had not chosen to prefer any appeal against the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the same has achieved finality against them on merits. The only surviving issue is the appellant''s claim for a meaningful compensation with regard to the rampant mal-practices in the supply of L.P.G. to the consumers. 6.Mr. Suman Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant has been rightly vehement in assailing the quantum of compensation. Apart from what has been already noticed above, he highlighted the fact that the appellant had to resort to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, who deputed the District Food Controller upon whose intervention and subsequently that of the Beopar Mandal to secure redress from the respondents. IT was highlighted that appellant was denied the elementary amenity of a gas cylinder for month & a half and what was more, the appellant was only bringing to therefore what infacet is generally well know about the prevailing deficiency in the services of the supply of gas to the ordinary rung of consumers. 7.There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. Indeed the authorised representative of the respondent could not and indeed did not dispute that both the cylinders supplied to the appellant were either defective or under weight. He only attempted to wriggle out of his liability on the ground that the respondents were merely distributors and the supply of gas was received in selled cylinders from the Indian Oil Corporation through a variety of channels, in which there were innumerable loope holes which are not easy to plug. IT was the stand that the appellant had offered to replace the cylinders and that the admitted shortage in weight was not deliberate or engineered by the respondents. 8. Against the aforesaid background, one cannot loose sight of the well known fact that the service of the supply of L.P.G to millions of consumers leaves much to be desired in its efficiency. Indeed on behalf of the respondent, the rampant mal-practices were virtually admitted, but the blame therefore, was sought to be shifted to other shoulders. We do not think that the traders can escape their liability by the specious plea that some others may be equally responsible, there for. As the ultimate supplier, it is their patent duty towards the consumer to supply the L.P.G cylinder of proper prescribed weight and quality. If they default therein, they necessarily have to make recompense to the consumers who cannot be cheated of the relief on the ground that the respondent''s principal may be liable or the chain of supply suffered from some defects. 9. Since the matter stands already broadly governed by the precedent in'' Vijay Kumar v. Managing Director, M/s. Hamdard Wakf Laboratory Delhi and Others'' (Supra), it is unnecessary to further elaborate the matter and it suffices to notice the following observations therein: " Therefore, the complaints by and actual consumer though couched in terms of personal relief in essence becomes a representative one to protect not only himself, but equally the silent majority of consumers in a country where rights of the consumers are yet at a threshold stage. The individual consumer who takes up cudgels in this context has somewhat of an onerous task which is highlighted pointedly by present case. xxx xxx xxx In the aforesaid context we are inclined to take the view that an individual consumer in such a situation bears the mantle of the larger consumer interest and indeed that of the public at large. Consequently in the somewhat few cases where he succeeds he is not only entitled to a full monetary recompense but equally some consideration for espousing the public consumer interest. If even after success, the consumer of this kind is left with a substantial amount out of his pocket because of a trial and appeal then perhaps, few would come forward to face such hazards. IT is indeed fair that the quantum of recompense in such situation must at least be a full equivalent of the burden of the cost of proceedings undertaken by him."

IT would be obvious that the aforesaid observations cover the case on the appellant''s favour. In the said case also the quantum of compensation was enhanced from a paltry sum of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- only. The same ratio to our mind is applicable in the present case as well. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal must allowed with costs (which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only ) an the compensation awarded to the appellants is hereby enhanced to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only, which shall be tendered within one month from today, failing which compliance would be enforced under Section 27 of the Act by the District Forum. Appeal allowed with costs.