Suja Varghese v. Indian Oil Corporation, Cochin — 1998 DIGILAW 439 (KER)

ORDER :- C.R.P. Nos. 1154 and 1163 of 1998 arise from O.S. No. 163 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor while C.R.P. Nos. 1273 and 1347 of 1998 arise from O.S. No. 161 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor, The revision petitioner Suja Varghese was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 163/1997 while the revision petitioner Mathew Daniel was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 161/97. According to the plaintiffs, both of them were the consumers of cooking gas from the Indian Oil Corporation through their agent at Adoor. They were issued domestic gas consumer cards and they were getting supply of cooking gas from 17-7-1990 upto 23-12-1996. Domestic gas consumer number of Suja Varghese is 8811613 while that of Mathew Daniel is 8759837. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that from 4-1-1997 onwards cooking gas was not supplied to the plaintiffs on the ground that the agent has committed some illegalities. Hence, the suits were instituted for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants, who were (1) the agent and (2) Indian Oil Corporation, to supply regularly the cooking gas. Along with the suits, I.A. No. 797/97 was filed in O.S. No. 161/97 and I.A. No. 799/97 was filed in O.S. No. 163/97 for an interim mandatory direction directing the defendants to supply the cooking gas. 3. The Corporation entered appearance and contended that the agent had exceeded its authority in granting domestic gas connections and had collusively gave some domestic gas connections to certain persons. Further, it contended that the consumer cards issued do not ralate to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs had not been issued any voucher from the Corporation. The trial Court, after hearing both the I.As., was of the view that it was a case to be considered as to whether the connections were issued bogusly to the plaintiffs. It also took into account the fact that for a long number of years cooking gas was supplied to the plaintiffs. Hence, it gave an interim direction to the defendants to supply cooking gas to the plaintiffs. 4. Against the above order of the trial Court, both the defendants filed C.M. Appeals in both the cases. Thus, C.M.A. Nos. 25 and 30/1997 were filed against the interlocutory order in O.S. No. 161 of 1997 and C.M.A. Nos. Hence, it gave an interim direction to the defendants to supply cooking gas to the plaintiffs. 4. Against the above order of the trial Court, both the defendants filed C.M. Appeals in both the cases. Thus, C.M.A. Nos. 25 and 30/1997 were filed against the interlocutory order in O.S. No. 161 of 1997 and C.M.A. Nos. 27 and 32 of 1997 were filed against the interlocutory order in O.S. No. 163 of 1997. The learned District Judge heard the appeals together and allowed the appeals. The learned District Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala, 1994 (1) Consumer Protection Reporter 255 and held that since no voucher has been produced by the petitioners, the direction given by the Court below cannot be upheld. In the above view of the matter, the appeals were allowed and the I.As. were rejected. It is against that the present revisions have been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases submitted that both the plaintiffs have been issued domestic gas consumer cards by the Corporation and they have been supplied regularly the cooking gas for about nearly six years. According to them, if there was fault on the part of the agent, they should not be penalised for it. Further, it is submitted that the dispute between the Corporation and the agent has been settled and the agency has been restored to the second defendant. But persons like the petitioners, who have paid money, are suffering in so far as no cooking gas is being supplied to them. Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that there was no authorised connection to the plaintiffs and that the illegal connections cannot be regularised. The Corporation counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above. 6. After hearing the parties and after perusing the records, I am of the view that the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. From the records, I find that both the plaintiffs have produced domestic gas consumer cards and it also shows that they have been supplied with the cooking gas till the end of 1996. In the counter filed by the Corporation they have denied the issue of such cards. But the production of such cards belie the case set up by the Corporation. 7. In the counter filed by the Corporation they have denied the issue of such cards. But the production of such cards belie the case set up by the Corporation. 7. Anyhow, we are at the preliminary stage and the only question is whether the supply of cooking gas should be continued to the plaintiffs. No doubt, the Corporation has taken the plea that the connections were issued collusively and unauthorisedly. This is a thing which should be proved in evidence. We are here now dealing with the case whether the two plaintiffs were supplied with the cooking gas. The agent has been proclaiming himself as the agent of the Indian Oil Corporation. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, at this stage it cannot be said that they were parties to the collusion. They had been getting regular supply of cooking gas. It will cause great hardship to the petitioners, if the supply of cooking gas is stopped all of a sudden. The Courts take judicial notice to the fact that if the supply of cooking gas is stopped, it will create great hardship to the middle class family living in any part of the State of Kerala. After the use of cooking gas, the old methods of using fire-wood and other things have completely come to a stop and without the cooking gas, the kitchen cannot be put to any use. But this does not mean that a person who has unauthorisedly obtained connection should continue to get cooking gas. But in the present case, I am not impressed by the argument of the Corporation because of the fact that the plaintiffs had been getting cooking gas for the last nearly six years and they have produced domestic gas consumer cards. 8. Learned counsel for the Corporation relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala, 1994 (1) CPR 255. If we closely scrutinise the facts, it can be found that there is some difference. In that case, one Dr. P. Kamalasanan had taken L.P.G. connection through M/s. Karthika Gas Agency. M/s. Karthika Gas Agency committed several irregularities in giving gas connection and in providing refills of L.P.G. cylinders to him. The gas agency had given more connections than authorised. That amounted to deficiency in their service. Dr. In that case, one Dr. P. Kamalasanan had taken L.P.G. connection through M/s. Karthika Gas Agency. M/s. Karthika Gas Agency committed several irregularities in giving gas connection and in providing refills of L.P.G. cylinders to him. The gas agency had given more connections than authorised. That amounted to deficiency in their service. Dr. Kamalasanan, the consumer took up the matter to the Corporation and it was admitted that irregularities were committed by the agent. Dr. Kamalasanan paid an amount of Rs. 2,036.65 towards the charges for getting L.P.G. connection. On the said date a consumer number was also accorded for which a sum of Rs. 61.65 was paid. The Corporation suspended the agency of the agent. But it came to be revived later on. Thereafter, the agent gave Dr. Kamalasanan a new registration for the connection and started regular supply of gas cylinder. The registration was done on 20th June, 1988 and the cylinder was supplied regularly till May, 1990. The consumer requested for regularisation of his gas connection. But the Corporation refused. This was taken as deficiency of service by the Corporation. Hence, a complaint was preferred to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Dr. Kamalasanan won before all the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter the Corporation took up the matter to the Supreme Court. It was found in that case that the agent had given unauthorised connections. The Court took note of the fact that the subscription voucher was not produced by the consumer. The Court took the view that there was no privity of contract between the Indian Oil Corporation and the consumer. In that view of the matter, the Court allowed the appeal. 9. The position is different in the present case. It has not been established that the plaintiffs were the unauthorised consumers. That is a matter in dispute. The plaintiffs had been receiving cooking gas for nearly six years. It is true that they have not produced vouchers. According to them, the vouchers have been lost. But they have produced domestic gas consumer cards. In the Supreme Court Case the consumer wanted regularisation of the gas connection. That was refused by the Corporation. In the present case, the Corporation has directed to stop the supply. It is true that they have not produced vouchers. According to them, the vouchers have been lost. But they have produced domestic gas consumer cards. In the Supreme Court Case the consumer wanted regularisation of the gas connection. That was refused by the Corporation. In the present case, the Corporation has directed to stop the supply. I am of the view that it is a case where until evidence is adduced and the matter is heard, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are the unauthorised consumers. As at present, it is necessary that the state of affairs that existed prior to the institution of the suit should continue. 10. In the above view of the matter, I set aside the orders passed by the Lower Appellate Court and restore the order passed by the trial Court directing the defendants to supply L.P.G. gas to the plaintiffs in both the cases from the month of September, 1998 onwards. The Corporation and the other defendant shall file written statements within a month from today. The Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. Order accordingly.