9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vas (Gayathri), Sasthamcotta is a member and Secretary of Respondent 1. He had taken LPG connection through M/s Karthika Gas Agency who is the authorised distributor of the appellant. The said Karthika Gas Agency is the second respondent. 3. The second respondent committed several irregularities in giving gas connection and in providing refills of LPG cylinders to him. The Gas Agency had given more connections than authorised by the appellant, the Indian Oil Corporation. That amounted to deficiency in their service. The second respondent is the authorised agent of Indian Oil Corporation. However, the appellant-Corporation did not take adequate care to ensure that the agency would not cheat the consumers. Notwithstanding the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam claiming regularisation of his gas connection and a compensation of ₹ 500. 6. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant. The appellant-Corporation was directed to regularise the connection given by the second respondent to first respondent on January 21, 1987 and issue a subscription voucher and also pay ₹ 100 as cost. 7. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 32 of 1991. By order dated June 10, 1992 the appellant's plea that there was no privity of contract between the first respondent and the appellant as per clause 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al unauthorised connections which would amount to a criminal breach of trust, no liability can be fastened on the appellant. 11. Clause 17 of the LPG distributorship agreement clearly postulates the distributor to act as principal and not as an agent. In fact, the complainant was informed under letter dated March 23, 1990 as to the correct position. In these circumstances, if there is no legal obligation to regularise the connection the complaint ought to have been thrown out. The authorities below erred in their approach. 12. In opposition to this, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the subscription voucher is not the sole evidence to establish the existence of an authorised connection. Possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipment the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation, and the Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/or engagements and/or in respect of any act or omission on the part of the Distributor, his servants, agents and workmen in regard to such installation, sale, distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. The Distributor shall be bound to inform the customers in writing of this provision, through correspondence or at the time of enrollment, of the customer. 15. Thus, it is clear that the relationship is one of principal to principal basis. The reliance by the authorities below that the circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstood that M/s Karthika Gas Agencies, Karunagapally, has released a number of cylinders and regulators unauthorisedly to various persons in Karunagapally. It is also understood that for such releases a receipt in the name of the Karthika Gas Enterprises has been issued and not in the name of Karthika Gas Agencies, who are our authorised distributors. This appears to be a clear unauthorised action entailing criminal breach of trust. However, insofar as we are not provided with a valid document such as receipt of subscription voucher issued by M/s Karthika Gas Agencies who are our authorised distributors we may not be in a position to take any action in regularising the connection. In regard to the supply of refills we are taking up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
