Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice Lakshmana Rao,
President; Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao & Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Members
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.—Complainant
versus
P.P. NARSINGA RAO & ANR.—Opp. Parties
C.D. Appeal Nos. 318 of 1992 & 87 of 1993— Decided on 12.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. N. Kama Raju, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate.
A person who has registered for a gas connection and whose registration has been accepted by the opposite party is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D)(II) - REGISTRATION FOR LPG CONNECTION - CONSUMER - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D)(II) - REGISTRATION FOR LPG CONNECTION - CONSUMER - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked for an LPG gas connection in 1982 but did not receive a connection despite several representations. He filed a complaint in 1991 seeking a new gas connection and compensation. The District Forum held that the complainant was a consumer and that the opposite parties were deficient in service. It directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the opposite parties had accepted his registration for a gas connection. It also held that the opposite parties were deficient in service as they did not inform the complainant about the fresh procedure for fresh connections in 1988. The court further held that the complaint was not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years of the cancellation of the registration.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the opposite parties were deficient in service? 3. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the opposite parties had accepted his registration for a gas connection. The court relied on the fact that the opposite parties had allotted a registration number to the complainant and had not informed him that fresh registration was required. 2. The court held that the opposite parties were deficient in service as they did not inform the complainant about the fresh procedure for fresh connections in 1988. The court noted that the opposite parties had advertised the new procedure in the newspapers, but that the complainant had not seen the advertisements. 3. The court held that the complaint was not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years of the cancellation of the registration. The court noted that the opposite parties had not informed the complainant about the cancellation of the registration until August 20, 1991, and that the complaint was filed in 1991.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the District Forum and directed the opposite parties to give a gas connection to the complainant on his paying all the amounts required for the connection. The court also directed the opposite parties to refund the amount they had deposited with the District Forum.
Mr. Justice Lakshmana Rao, President— These appeals coming on for hearing upon perusing the memo of grounds appeals and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N Kama Raju Advocate for the appellant in CDA No. 318/92 and the respondent No. 2 in CDA No. 87/93 and of Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in CDA No. 318/ 92 and for the appellant in CDA No. 87/93 and respondent No. 1 in CDA No. 87/93 not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following order:—
2. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed in C.D. No. 3/92 on the file of the District Forum, Hyderabad. The facts briefly stated are as follows :
The complainant on 31.7.1982 booked for H.P. Gas connection under Registration No. 83595 with Satya Tulasi Agencies. No amount was paid on the booking. According to him, he made number of representations to the opposite parties on coming to know that the persons who booked for the gas connection much later than him, got their connections but he was not released any gas connection. He therefore filed the complaint to release the new gas connection to him and claimed Rs. 6,000/- by way of compensation.
3. Although both the opposite parties appeared opposite party No. 1 filed counter stating that the registration was without payment of any amount and the complaint was filed 10 years after the registration. As the cause of action arose before the commencement of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is not maintainable. It was further stated that in 1988, fresh guidelines were issued by the Ministry stating that new connections would be given on making certain deposit and inspite of the same being advertised in the papers, the complainant did not make any application for new connection. It was also stated that the address given by the complainant at the time of registration is quite different and that he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. Exhs. A.1 and A.2 were marked for the complainant and the Counsels for both parties, were heard. The District Forum held that by alloting Registration number to the complainant the opposite parties agreed to render him the service by issuing new LPG connection, when his turn came. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the said Act. It, however, held that the complainant is justified in waiting for a communication from the opposite party and the opposite party did not inform the complainant about the fresh procedure for fresh connections in 1988. It is also repelled the contention that the complainants barred by limitation. If, therefore, directed that the first opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the order or if the opposite party so chooses to give a new LPG connection along with costs of Rs. 300/- to be given to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the dealer i.e. Satya Tulasi Agencies preferred CDA 87/93 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation preferred CDA 318/92. Since common questions arises for consideration, these two appeals are disposed of together.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no amount was paid at the time of registration and hence the complainant is not a consumer and question of deficiency of service does not arise. It is also submitted that the complainant should have applied for fresh registration on payment in 1988 when it was advertised in the news papers. But it is to be seen that the complainant registered for gas connection and the registration was accepted by the opposite party and the opposite party did not intimate the complainant at any point of time that fresh registration has to be made. The appellants' counsel also raised the contention that the complaint was filed beyond period of limitation. It was only on 20th August, 1991 the cancellation of the said registration was made and he was advised to register afresh.
