Ram Naresh Sinha vs Amitabh Kumar

THIS revision petition has been filed by Dr. Ram Naresh Sinha, Proprietor of M/s. Jyoti Kalash (hereinafter referred as the ''Petitioner'') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission") in which Shri Amitabh Kumar who was the original complainant before the District Forum, was the Respondent.

THE facts of the case, according to the Respondent, are that he is a consumer of Indian Oil Corporation for L.P. Gas with JT No. 6946 and Subscriber No. 2246. On 16.2.1991 the said cooking gas connection of the Respondent which was with M/s. S.K. Trading Co., Buan Marg, Patna, came on transfer to M/s. Jyoti Kalash, Gaighat Gulzarbagh, Patna of which the Petitioner was the proprietor. On 16.8.1991 Respondent applied for a second gas cylinder to M/s. Jyoti Kalash as per the rules of the Indian Oil Corporation. The Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation also wrote a letter dated 28.9.1993 to the Petitioner authorizing the second gas cylinder. However, instead of supplying the second cylinder, Petitioner stopped the supply of even the first gas cylinder as a result of which since 1993 there has been no gas supply to the Respondent from the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by this arbitrary and unfair action of the Petitioner, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to release the gas connection and pay the Respondent Rs. 75,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,500 as litigation cost.

PETITIONER has denied the above contentions and stated that he was justified in stopping supply of the gas connection because he came to know through reliable sources that the Respondent was a fictitious consumer and he had obtained the T.T.V. from the Indian Oil Corporation by manipulation. Petitioner, therefore, sought relevant information vide letter dated 31.8.1993 from the Respondent which included information as to what was his age, how he initially got the first cylinder, what was his old address, etc. to which the Respondent did not reply. Petitioner further stated that one Ashok Kumar of Anand Bhawan Awas Grih, Fraser Road, Patna had written to the Indian Oil Corporation as well as to Petitioner that he was the bona fide consumer of the said gas connection but unfortunately his papers had got lost which have been mischievously used by someone else to get the connection transferred from M/s. S.K Trading Co. to M/s. Jyoti Kalash. Shri Ashok Kumar also requested the Manager of M/s. Jyoti Kalash to take appropriate action against the fictitious consumer and intimate the action taken. Keeping in view these facts. Petitioner stated that there was no deficiency in service and he had rightly stopped the supply of gas cylinder to the Respondent for the aforesaid reasons.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that no credible evidence including an affidavit was produced by the Petitioner in support of his contentions and directed the Petitioner to issue the second gas cylinder within one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed with the following observations: "From a perusal of Annexure 1, TSB, which was issued by S.K. Trading, Budha Marg, Patna, it is clear that TTV Number is written as 117834 and it was prepared on 14.2.1991 and customer''s name has been given as A. Kumar of Danka Imli, Laddu Akhara, Patna-7 which is the address of respondent-complainant given in this appeal and the TVS number is signed by Amitabh Kumar in the column of signature of customer. Therefore, he claim of appellant has got no leg to stand. The learned Forum has rightly observed that the said Ashok Kumar or Amit Kumar have not filed any affidavit in support of the appellant claim referred before the learned DCF. The complainant is consumer as per supply of gas connection paid to the distributor. Hence, we are of the view that appellant is deficient in service and caused immense mental torture and harassment to complainant."

THE State Commission while maintaining me order of the District Forum relating to compensation of Rs. 10,000 directed the Petitioner to pay an additional Rs. 5,000 as cost of appeal over and above Rs. 2,000 ordered by the District Forum within 30 days from the date of the order failing which interest @ 12% per annum. Petitioner was also directed to restore the supply of gas to the Respondent within 15 days and if the Respondent again applies for the second cylinder, it should be given as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. Hence, the present revision petition.

PETITIONER was present in-person. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, since service is complete, it was decided to proceed with the case ex parte.

PETITIONER reiterated that he had committed no deficiency in service and had rightly withheld supply of gas cylinder to the Respondent because as per the instructions of Indian Oil Corporation, he was to supply the cylinder only after due verification that the Respondent was a bona fide customer. Further, since the name of the subscriber in TSB was written as A. Kumar and one Ashok Kumar had written to both the Indian Oil Corporation on 17.1.1994 as well as to the Petitioner that the said gas connection was in his name and someone had mischievously got his connection which was attached to M/s. S.K. Trading Co. transferred to M/s. Jyoti Kalash. it had become all the more necessary to verify the antecedents and bona fide of the Respondent since Respondent failed to cooperate. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in stopping the supply of gas to the Respondent and, thus, there is no deficiency in service.

WE have heard the Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. It is a fact that the Respondent was in possession of a document containing the TTV No. 117834 pertaining to the gas connection in which the name of A. Kumar of Danka lmli, Laddu Akhara. Patna was given which is the address of the Respondent. The Fora below after examining the evidence on record had concluded that the signature on the papers was that of the Respondent. Mr. Amitabh Kumar and there was, therefore, no doubt about his being a bona fide consumer of the concerned gas connection. It is also in evidence that the Indian Oil Corporation had written a letter to Petitioner''s Company on 28.9.1993 advising that the second gas cylinder be released as per Respondent''s request. We note that despite this specific request to its own dealer by India Oil Corporation, the Petitioner did not do the needful. The Petitioner has also not been able to show any letter/instructions from the Indian Oil Company which states that before issuing the second cylinder, he was required to verify the Respondent''s bona fide/antecedents. If at all the Petitioner had some doubts about the bona fide of the consumer, he could have written to the Indian Oil Corporation of which he was a dealer stating his apprehensions instead of arbitrarily disregarding the order of the Indian Oil Corporation and refusing to act on their instructions. On the other hand, it is a fact that the Respondent was in possession of papers relating to the Gas Connection in his name and address as well as the authorization from the Indian Oil Corporation not only pertaining to transfer of the first cylinder from the dealer to the Petitioner but also sanctioning a second cylinder. Under these circumstances and without any adequate reasons, as discussed above, the Petitioner could not have disregarded the instructions of the Indian Oil Corporation of which he was a dealer. The Fora below being Courts of fact after considering the evidence filed before them have rightly concluded that the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service by not supplying the gas/gas cylinder to a bona fide consumer and we see no reason to interfere with these orders. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition and uphold the order of the State Commission with the following modifications.

THE Petitioner is directed to pay the Respondent compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2,000 as litigation cost within a period of 30 days from the date of the order failing which interest @ 9% per annum will be payable from the date of this order till the date of payment petitioner is also directed to restore the gas to supply to the Respondent within 15 days and if the Respondent applies for a second cylinder, it should be supplied within a period of three months. Revision Petition dismissed.