NATIONAL GAS SERVICE vs TRIJUHI NARAIN TEWARI

THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by District Forum, Faizabad, whereby relief has been granted to the complainant in the manner indicated in this order.

IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to state facts of the case in some detail. On 15th September, 1982 one Tribhun Narain Tiwari applied for L.P. Gas connection with Eagle Gas Service. Annexure 1 is the receipt which indicates that Gas Cylinder was booked in the name of Tribhun Narain Tiwari resident of 1773/A Naka, Faizabad. It is not disputed that initially the Gas connection referred to in Annexure 11 Tribhun Narain Tiwari was to have the facility of L.P. Gas Service from Eagle Gas Service, Faizabad. It is not in dispute that since 1985 the National Gas Service is to supply Gas Service instead of Eagle Gas Service. The record of the case indicates that the application for Gas Connection matured in 1986 as a consequence of which Tribhun Narain Tiwari was informed about maturity of L.P. Gas connection in his name. The information was given according to address given in Annexure 1-A perusal of the Annexure (2A) indicates that Tribhun Narain Tiwari was asked to take connection after proper identification of Shri Tribhun Narain Tiwari subject to following of necessary formalities. Annexure (2A) further requires Shri Tribhun Narain Tiwari to get hot plate as earlier as possible. The record of the case also reveals that on 1.1.87 Tribhun Narain Tiwari moved an application before the National Gas Service indicating that his name Tribhun Narain has an alias Trijuhi Narain Tiwari. On this application the appellant informed Tribhun Narain Tiwari that the Gas connection could not be granted unless the identity of person to whom connection was granted is established. It appears that Tribhun Narain Tiwari complained to the District Magistrate, Faizabad about the refusal of the Gas connection. The District Supply Officer by a communication dated 18th July, 1987 set aside the Gas connection and directed the appellant to make allotment according to Rules.

It was in these circumstances that on 15.2.90, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Faizabad dated 15.2.90. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the main grievance of the complainant is that in spite of directions given by the District Supply Officer, the allotment to Gas connection according to the rules has not allotted to the complainant. This complaint was contested by the appellant mainly on the ground that since they were not satisfied about the identity of the person to whom Gas connection was to be allotted the Gas connection has not been given to the complainant.

FROM a perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, Faizabad, it appears that the controversy in the case centre around the question whether the complainant in the instant case is the person to whom gas connection was allotted as far back as the year 1986. On this aspect of the case the District Forum, Faizabad has recorded a finding that the present complainant has established the identity of the person who applied for Gas connection on 15th September, 1982. In order to appreciate the controversy so raised, it is necessary to peruse the application of Tribhun Narain Tiwari addressed to M/s. Gas Service, Faizabad. It was for the first time that he indicated that his name Tribhun Narain Tiwari has also alias as Trijuhi Narain Tiwari. The appellant on 12th January 1992 as stated earlier refused to entertain the application on the ground the identity of the person has not been established. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant draw our attention to L.P. Gas Manual which required that Ration Card of the appellant should be produced before the appellant. A perusal of the Ration Card which is on record of the case does not mention the name of Tribhun Narain Tiwari, it mentions the name of Trijuhi Narain Tiwari. On this basis learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not entitled to connection as the allotment and Ration Card did not mention the name of Tribhun Narain Tiwari. We find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The District Forum Faizabad did not attach sufficient importance to this aspect of the matter. We have perused the entire record and we see no justification for accepting the finding of the District Forum, Faizabad. The appellant in cancelling the Gas connection can not be said to have acted illegally when the record of the case itself makes the question of identity of the person to Gas connection, unreliable. There is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of the Gas connection in question was sanctioned in the name Tribhun Narain Tiwari. This sanction does not indicate the alias which Tribhun Narain Tiwari assumes. It is for the first time in 1987 that after the lapse long time that the name Trijuhi Narain Tiwari appears on the score. On the basis of the facts indicated above, we are of the view that the appellant was justified in refusing Gas connection to the It is not for the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to enquire as to who is the proper person to whom the Gas connection is granted. The appellant is the best person to decide to whom, it would be safe to give Gas connection as prescribed by the directions in the Gas Manual unless the decision taken by the authorities is violated by any principle of law we are boath to interference with such orders. We find that order passed by the appellant in refusing to grant sanction is not violated by law.

WE accordingly disagree with the finding recorded by the District Forum, Faizabad that the complainant is the person to whom Gas connection was sanctioned in 1982. WE have come to this finding on the ground that the District Forum, Faizabad has not properly appreciated the documents. There is yet aspect of the case which deserves to be noticed. As stated earlier the Gas connection was granted as far back as 10 January 1987. The complaint in the instant case was filed on 5th February 1990. Apart from the provisions of the Limitation Act 1993 we find the respondent guilty of latches in approaching the District Forum, Faizabad after more than 3 years. We accordingly hold that the complainant is guilty latches in approaching the Forum. The record of the case also reveals that at an earlier date the Counsel for Respondent put in appearance and was apprised of the next date of hearing. The order further indicates that Counsel for the respondent appeared his signatures to the order sheet for the next date of hearing. In spite of that the Counsel did not put in appearance. The order passed by the District Forum, Faizabad as set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed. _____________