RAJASTHAN GASES LTD. vs G.K.BHATNAGAR

ALL the aforesaid appeals wherein a legal question of law has been raised and their facts being on identical lines, are being disposed of by this Common Order.

IN order to give a general picture of the facts available in these appeals, we take up Appeal No. 648/1998, Rajasthan Gases Ltd. v. G.B. Mathur & Ors., and eight others as a model case which has been disposed of by the District Forum, Nagaur. It is undisputed between the parties that the appellant Rajasthan Gases Ltd., Jaipur is the supplier of liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and stationed at Jaipur and its local dealer in Ladnun is Shri Balaji Gas Agencies. The consumers - respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the persons who have applied to obtain the LPG connection for supplying it at their houses. Each of the consumer has paid an amount of Rs. 1,500/- as security advance and Rs. 250/- as service charges with the respondent No. 9 (dealer) Shri Balaji Gas Agencies. It is the grievance of the consumers - respondent Nos. 1 to 8 that though they were provided the LPG connection in the year 1994 onwards and were supplied the gas refills to them till the month of September, 1996 but thereafter w.e.f. October, 1996, the dealer started giving deficient services to them by non-providing the gas refills as and when they asked for. INstead the dealer started to supply the gas refills to other persons who were in need of it for their matrimonial functions, etc. This resulted in the non-supply of gas refills to the consumers - respondents. That inspite of complaints to the supplier i.e. the appellant, neither the dealer nor the appellant came to their rescue and thus they had to approach the learned District Forum to seek directions against the supplier (appellant) and the dealer (respondent No. 9) to refund to them not only the security advance money but also to pay them compensation as demanded by each of them along with cost of litigation. This complaint and so also the other complaints were opposed by the appellant as also by the dealer-respondent. The appellant has mainly raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the District Forum concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in view of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties besides contesting them on merits.

It may be noted that in rest of the appeals also the facts are almost identical with certain variations in the date of making an application to seek LPG connection; date of supplying the gas to them and the date of discontinuation of supply of LPG refills by the O.Ps. appellant and the dealer concerned. In the District of Nagaur, the dealer has been Shri Balaji Gas Agencies and Manoj Gas Agencies, whereas in Sikar District, the dealer has been Jain Gas Suppliers; at Tonk District, the dealer has been Home Care Services and in Pali District, Hanuman Gas Agency is the supplier. All the aforesaid dealers are the respondents in the appeal filed by the appellant Rajasthan Gases Ltd. who is the supplier of LPG to these dealers; which in turn deliver the LPG refills to the consumers in all the cases. The learned District Fora after consideration of the material made available before them have accorded relief to these consumers who have filed the complaint in the respective District Fora directing the O.Ps. to refund not only the amount of advance security but also to pay compensation proportionate to the merits of each case.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and for the respondents at great length and have examined the material made available before us by the respective District Forum and have carefully gone through the records. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned orders in each of the appeal mainly on the plea of absence of jurisdiction of the District Forum in entertaining and decreeing the complaint in each of the case. The argument has been that as between the parties there has been a specific agreement to refer their disputes exclusively in Jaipur as per terms and condition No. 14 at the reverse of the subscription voucher issued to the consumers, the concerned learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the appeals be allowed. In support of this argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly relied upon the cases of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239; M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Corporation v. Rama Mishra, Civil Appeal No. 6492/2000 SC, and Smt. Shanti v. Ansals Housing and Construction Ltd., I (2002) CPJ 125=2002 (3) CPR 102.

AS against it, it has been submitted on behalf of the consumers - respondents that since each of the consumer has obtained the LPG connection after making application to the dealer and the dealer is also stationed within the jurisdiction of the respective District Forum and that too on behalf of the supplier of the Gas i.e. the appellant; condition No. 14 relied upon by the appellant does not come in the way of entertaining the complaint by the respective District Forum. It has, therefore, been urged that there is no force in this argument and appeal in each of the case should be dismissed. We have given due thought and consideration to the legal issue raised in these appeals. It may be stated at the outset that the dealer concerned in each of the case is an agent of the supplier i.e. Rajasthan Gases Ltd. The privity of contract has been mainly between the consumer and the authorised local agent i.e. the dealer of the appellant Rajasthan Gases Ltd. The appellant has not placed any agreement which may have been entered into between the consumers on the one hand and the supplier i.e. the appellant on the other hand. The appellant has mainly relied upon condition No. 14 which is printed at the reverse of subscription voucher issued to the customers. This condition No. 14 reads "all legal jurisdiction will be exclusively in Jaipur only". On the front side of the subscription voucher, there are signatures of the consumers and the dealer concerned wherein the dealer has given a certificate that he has received Rs. 1,550/- as the deposit for the LPG Cylinder and Pressure Regulator on behalf of the appellant Rajasthan Gases Ltd. Below the certificate printed on the subscription voucher the consumer has acknowledged by signing as to have received the LPG Cylinder and Pressure Regulator as indicated in the quantity column and on loan and also to have received the Rajasthan Gas Authorisation Card. Although in the language of the certificate signed by the consumer, it is written that the Rajasthan Gas Cylinder and Pressure Regulator is being received by him on loan on the terms and conditions stated out overleaf but the extent of language used in this certificate cannot be enlarged to include services which are to be provided by the O.Ps. In other words, if there has been any agreement between the parties it has been only in respect of the issue of "Rajasthan Gas Cylinder" and "Pressure Regulator" and its use but not in respect of the services which are to be rendered by the O.P. by supplying gas refills to the consumers. Even the clause incorporated under condition No. 14 on the reverse of subscription voucher printed is not explicit because it does not specify about which particular legal dispute the matter would be referred in Jaipur and to which particular authority. This clause is highly ambiguous and cannot be read as to construe that both the parties have agreed knowingly to refer all the disputes between them to the jurisdiction of Courts located in Jaipur only. In this regard, a mention may be made to the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the appellant. On the basis of this decision, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen there-with, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise between the parties themselves; the agreement would be valid as has been in the case there under consideration. We are afraid it is not so here. The principle of law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in ABC Laminart case does not assist the appellant in any way since Hon''ble the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that such a contract should be clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague and if it is otherwise it would be hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. As has been analysed above, condition No. 14 on which the appellant has relied; is not only clear and ambiguous but is also not explicit and vague also; since there is an absence of reference to the "nature of disputes" as also the absence of the use of word "Court". In our opinion, the aforesaid condition relied upon by the appellant is highly vague, ambiguous, inexplicit and unclear and cannot be construed as to mean that there has been a meeting of the minds of the parties (consensus ad idem) with respect to the subject matter. Moreover, Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of Bhandari Interstate Carriers & Anr. v. A.K. Synthetics, III (1997) CPJ 42 (NC), has dealt with the aspect of an ouster clause incorporated in an agreement in reference to the views expressed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra). In fact, in ABC Laminart''s case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have quoted the views of Justice M.P. Thakkar, J. expressed in Snehal Kumar Sarabhai v. E.T. Organisation, AIR 1975 Gujarat 72, as under : "That the ouster clause could operate as estoppel against the parties to the contract, but it could not tie the hands of the Court and denude it of the powers to do justice. Ordinarily, it was observed : the Courts would respect the agreement between the parties which was borne out of the meeting of their minds out of consideration of convenience, but the Courts were not obliged to do so in every case; and that a new approach to the question deserved to be made where the ouster clause was "calculated to operate as an engine of oppression and as a means to defeat the ends of justice". In such a case the free consent may be wanting and injustice may be avoided."

HON''ble the National Commission has also in the case of Bhandari Interstate Carriers & Anr. (supra), after consideration of the view of the HON''ble the Supreme Court in ABC Laminart''s case observed : "We have gone through the evidence on this point and carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, the analysis of the State Commission on this point is correct and we affirm the finding. We find no force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and it is repelled."

IN other words, it has been held by Hon''ble the National Commission in the aforesaid decision while interpreting the expression "agreed to vest jurisdiction" that such a clause has to be interpreted to serve the spirit of the C.P. Act and that such a contract before it estops the parties from raising a dispute in another Forum must be a conscious result of the ''meeting of the minds'' i.e. it must be the result of an informed, negotiated agreement and even if it is so and the Court or Forum feels that it will act against the interest of the consumer, the Court or Forum or Commission can relieve him of this contract. In the present case, there is definitely no evidence on record that condition No. 14 printed on the reverse of the subscription voucher; which is quite ambiguous, vague and unclear besides being inexplicit has been the result of an informed negotiated contract based on meeting of the minds of the parties and hence we are of the view that the disputes under consideration are not the cases of "an agreement to vest jurisdiction of a particular Court at a particular place" with option and as such, such a clause contained in the aforesaid condition No. 14 has to be ignored because it does not bind the parties in accordance with the ratio laid down by Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of Bhandari Interstate Carriers & Anr. (supra), which is also in consonance with the ratio of the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra). Before us in these cases, the ouster clause (printed at the reverse of the subscription voucher) is inapplicable, more so when relationship between the consumer here and provider of service (dealer) has been created and the cause of action has also arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the respective Consumer Fora. The plea to the contrary, therefore, fails.

The other two decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are also of no assistance because the facts available in them are quite distinguishable.

IN view of above, we are of the firm opinion that the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum in each of the case had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints preferred before them is not acceptable and is rejected. Now coming to the merits in each of the cases; it may be mentioned that on the basis of material made available before the learned District Forum in each of the case, the finding is that the O.Ps. i.e. the appellant, the supplier Rajasthan Gases Ltd. as also the dealer are guilty of rendering deficient services to the consumers in not supplying the gas refills as and when needed by them. The award given by each of the learned District Forum to refund the advance security money as also payment of service charges in each of the case is in consonance with the facts as established by material placed by the consumers before the learned District Forum. Consequently, we do not find any merit in all the appeals filed by the appellant which are hereby dismissed with cost on parties. A copy of this order be placed on the record of remaining each and every appeal. Appeals dismissed.