Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESS AL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Y. Krishan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Members
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.—Petitioner
versus
THAKUR ANANT GAJANAN & ORS.—Respondents
Rev. Pet. No. 250 of 1993—Decided on 4.5.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sitha Ram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V.P. Sawant, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (1) and 14 - Cooking Gas - Want of supply of gas cylinders - Disputes between HPCL and its distributor - HPCL seized the cylinders and records from the godown of the Agency. HPCL stopped distribution of LPG cylinders to the said dealer - Consumers affected for want of cooking gas - Prayer for regularisation of their gas supply - After scrutiny it was found that only a few applicants possess the legitimate documents of registration for the supply of gas - Directions made by State Commission regarding other applicants are unjustified.
Held: Under the directions of the State Commission, HPCL has scrutinised the claims of the 360 applicants and has found that only a couple of them have the valid documents of registration with M/s. Raj Agencies. In view of that report and undertaking, the State Commission had finally disposed of the appeal on 17th October, 1992 and issued certain directions and HPCL is prepared to consider the claims of the consumers out of the 360 applicants on priority basis provided each consumer produces the relevant statutory documents evidencing the fact of booking for gas connection which was made with M/s. Raj Agencies.
We have not been able to understand how the State Commission happened to issue fresh directions vide impugned order. It was further mentioned in this order that if the order was not complied within 15 days from the date of the order, the Commission· would exercise powers under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Throughout the order it has not been mentioned that the directions issued vide order dated 17th October, 1992 have been violated by HPCL. If all the 360 applicants have not obtained the cylinders and regulators in a legitimate manner, we fail to understand how such applicants could be provided with gas cylinders on the existing regulators with the applicants. A person cannot be allowed to have a premium over his illegal acts.
(Paras 11 & 12)
Result: Revision allowed.
Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This Revision Petition has been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short HPCL) against the order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay in Appeal No. 99 of 1992 on its file.
2. We may give a brief resume of the facts leading to this revision petition. The President, Uran Taluka Grahak Sanghatana and Mr. Suresh Narayana Katadare filed a complaint before the Raigad Consumer Redressal Forum at Alibag against M/s. Raj Agency and HPCL. M/s. Raj Agency was the distributor of HPCL of cooking gas cylinders at Uran. According to the allegations in the complaint, there were some disputes between HPCL, and the said distributor as a result of which HPCL seized the cylinders and records from the office and godown of the said Agency on 14th November, 1990. 270 empty cylinders are said to have been seized by HPCL on that date, which were subsequently redistributed. However, there were several hundreds of consumers who had already deposited their empty cylinders with the distributor of which no cognizance was taken by HPCL. HPCL, stopped distribution of LPG cylinders to the said dealer as a result of which the said several hundred consumers were affected for want of cooking gas. The Complainants/consumers prayed in their complaint that their cooking gas supply be regularised and restored by issuing proper directions to the Opposite Parties.
3. The complaint was contested by both the Opposite Parties. M/s. Raj Agency contended that no illegality has been committed by it and the concerned officers of HPCL have unnecessarily started the dispute to fulfil their own vested interest. HPCL, filed a counter alleging irregularities and illegalities committed by the distributor, and offered to supply cylinders to certain limited consumers directly.
The District Forum issued certain directions about the supply of gas cylinders to the complainants.
4. Feeling aggrieved against that order, HPCL filed on appeal before the State Commission at Bombay. Before the State Commission on behalf of the complainants, a list of 360 persons was filed, who were said to have made the necessary deposits with M/s. Raj Agency during the period from 1988 to October, 1990 and who were said to have been supplied gas cylin-, ders and regulators by M/s. Raj Agency. It was contended on behalf of the complainants that due to the dispute between HPCL, and M/s. Raj Agency those 360 persons were suffering for want of supply of gas cylinders. Counsel for HPCL stated before the State Commission that the agency of M/s. Raj Agency for distribution of gas in Uran has been terminated. On 3rd March, 1992, the State Commission passed an interim order, on the concession of HPCL, that pending decision of the appeal, authorised consumers will be provided gas cylinders by making alternative arrangement. Vide orders dated 5th June, 1992 the State Commission directed HPCL to examine the applications of those 360 persons critically with reference to the money receipts said to have been issued by M/s. Raj Agency and to find out whether any of the applications was legitimate consumer according to the rules and regulations meant for the supply of gas cylinders to the consumers. HPCL was also directed to find out whether these applicants could be put on priority basis as against, those consumers who have made applications for registering their names subsequently. It was also directed not to enroll new consumers bypassing the priority of the 360 applicants. HPCL was to physically verify those consumers out of 360 applicants whether they were in possession of the gas cylinders and regulators issued by M/ s. Raj Agency. The report of these physical verification and the scrutiny was to be placed before the State Commission at the time of final hearing.
5. After scrutiny of the applications, HPCL filed a report to the effect that only a few possess the legitimate documents of registra
