M/S. Swastik Gas Distributors Vs. Mahabir Prasad Agrawal - Court Judgment

S.N. Sinha, President:

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 6.12.90 passed by the District Forum, Santhalparganas (Dumka), Camp Sahebganj, directing the appellant who was opposite party before the District Forum (here-in-after called the opposite party) to give L.P.G. Cylinder to the respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum and here- in-after called the complainant. The District Forum granted a token compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant for putting him under stress and strain in obtaining gas connection from him (the appellant) to which he was entitled.

2. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly stated. Admittedly the complainant applied for L.P.G. Cylinder and his application was registered by the opposite party - who is Distributor of Indane Cooking Gas at Sahebganj. The case of the complainant is that inspite of several reminders to the O.P. and assurance given by the O.P. he could not get the cooking gas through the opposite party got the oven purchased by the complainant inspected. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the O.P. for supply of L.P.G. Cylinder to him and also for compensation for stress and strain caused to him by the O.P. The version of the case as put forth by the opposite party on the other hand was that the Registration Slip are issued to the different applicants for supply of L.P.G. cylinders and they are supplied according to the "first come first serve system". The further case of O.P. was that during inspection it was found that the complainant has already a gas cylinder and pressure regulator from before and that the complainant has not deposited the fee for inspection of oven at his house and that according to the rules the complainant is not entitled for gas connection. The O.P. has also challenged the maintainability of the case of the complainant before the District Forum.

3. Before this Commission the appellant has assailed the validity of the order passed by the District Forum on two grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the District Forum has directed the opposite party - appellant to give L.P.G. cylinder to the complainant which order could not be passed by the District Forum u/Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, There appears substance in the submission on behalf of the appellant. A case can be filed before a Consumer court only for any of the relief as enumerated in Clauses A, B, C and D of Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act. The Consumer Court cannot pass any order directing to do something or desist from doing anything. Such order is not contemplated by any of the clauses of Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act. We are butressed in our view by the principles laid down by the National Commission in A.P. State Electricity Board and others v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association [I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 Consumer Cases 266].

4. Secondly it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. This question was also raised before the District Forum on behalf of the O.P. and the District Forum has held that consumer defined under the Act means a person "who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods" and as the complainant had got his name registered with the opposite party for supply of gas to him and the opposite party had issued a letter to the complainant to get the gas connection from him the complainant became consumer under the system of deferred payment as provided above under the Act. This approach of the District Forum is misconceived. The gas connection had not been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party and hence the question of buying goods under the system of any deferred payment does not arise. This question was raised in a similar case before this Commission in Appeal No. 35/1990 M/s. Jehanabad Gas Agencies, Jehanabad decided on 7th October, 1991 and in that case this Commission has held that an applicant for L.P.G. cylinder is not a consumer within the definition of 'consumer' under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. For the reasons discussed above we find and hold that the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained.

6. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The parties will bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.