In the Matter of: PRATAP JYOTI vs State

THIS enquiry has been initiated on a complaint received from one Shri Narain Singh, son of Shri Dhani Singh. Shri Narain Singh (complainant hereafter) has alleged that he had booked for a LPG connection with an agency called Robin Agency in September, 1990, that his registration serial number was 404774, that he was wait-listed with the serial number 3384, that his name was transferred to a new agency by the name Pratap Jyoti (respondent 1 hereafter), that the said new agency was the authorised distributor of LPG of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (respondent 2 hereafter), that after the transfer of his booking he contacted respondent 1 on 31st January, 1994, that respondent''s 1 representatives made him wait from time to time till 8th February, 1994 on which day respondent 1 gave him a fresh slip bearing No. 5188363 asking him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,600/- but quoted in the slip only an amount of Rs. 650/-, that respondent 1 was willing to gave the gas connection only if he singed the said slip with the wrong amount shown therein, that respondent 1''s representatives behaved with him in an ''improper manner'' and that he was told on 14th February, 1994 that his booking had been cancelled.

BASED on the above complaint, a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued on 13th September, 1995 calling upon the respondents to defend themselves against the allegations. It also transpires from the pleadings that respondent 1 had also indulged in the restrictive trade practice of a tie-up sale by insisting on the complainant to purchase its hot plate for releasing the new gas connection. The trade practice of releasing a new gas connection subject to the aforesaid tie-up sale and of releasing a new gas connection on collection of a premium amount being prima- facie restrictive in nature, the NOE called upon the respondents to defend themselves against the said charges including unjustified costs and restrictions on the consumers attracting Section 33(1)(b) and Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The NOE was issued under Section 10(a)(iv) of the Act treating the complaint of Shri Narain Singh as information and the complainant as the informant. The charge against respondent 2 is its failure to exercise proper control and supervision on respondent 1. Both the respondents submitted their replies to the NOE. They are summarised herein below : Reply of respondent 1 1. Respondent 2 lays down rules and regulations for release of new LPG connections. Respondent 1 as its distributor is bound by them. Essentially, there are two conditions namely that there should not be more than one gas connection in the same kitchen and that at the time of issuing the new gas connection, the consumer must be in possession of a hot plate/ cooking range of ISI specification plus a rubber tube also as per ISI specification. 2. When the original ration card was produced by the complainant, respondent 1 noticed that there was already one gas connection existing at his residence. Furthermore, the complainant was staying with his father and both were sharing one kitchen with a gas connection in the name of his father. 3. The complainant failed to produce any proof that he was having a hot plate and rubber tube with ISI specifications.

Respondent 1 did not refuse the release of gas connection but advised the complainant to fulfil the conditions imposed by respondent 2.

THE complainant moved the Consumer Redressal Forum, which dismissed his complaint. Respondent 2''s reply 1. THE stipulations of respondent 2 cannot be regarded as restrictive in nature as they are designed for the safety of the public. 2. Respondent 2 had advised the complainant to approach respondent 1 and receive his gas connection after fulfilling the stipulated conditions. 3. THE complainant has concealed the fact that there is already a gas connection in his house-hold in the name of his father. 4. THE complainant never made efforts to fulfil the stipulated terms and conditions. After the pleadings were completed, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondents are or have been indulging in the restrictive trade practices as alleged by the DG ? 2. If answer to the Issue No. 1 is in the affirmative whether the said restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to the public interest ? Note : Reference in Issue No. 1 to the DG namely the Director General of Investigation and Registration is because of the fact that the NOE has been issued under Section 10(a)(iv) of the Act and consequently the DG is prosecuting the case. 5. THE DG examined Shri Narain Singh, the complainant, who was cross examined by the Advocate for the respondent. On behalf of respondent 1, Shri A.K. Sarkar, its Manager filed his affidavit in evidence and was cross examined by the other side.

We gave a hearing to Ms. Renu Sehgal, Advocate for the DG, Mr. V.K. Kalra, Advocate for respondent 1 and Ms. A. Banerjee, Advocate for respondent 2.

THE safety of the public and LPG users is paramount in adjudicating this dispute. THE requirement of respondent 2 at item 11 of its standard pamphlet is that ''it is dangerous to instal and use two LPG connections......in the same kitchen''. Further more at item 7 of the pamphlet is the requirement that the ''cylinder is to be connected through the Bharat gas regulator and a rubber tube (IS 10908) to a Hot-Plate/ Cooking Range (IS 4246 or IS 4760)''. These two requirements or conditions are essentially designed in public interest for the safety of the consumers. These cannot constitute restrictive trade practices as public interest and safety will be prejudicially affected if such restrictions are not in place and enforced. In this view of the matter, respondent 2 has not indulged in restrictive trade practices alleged in the NOE in having stipulated the aforesaid restrictions. No negligence on the part of respondent 2 in exercising supervision and control over respondent 1 has been established or urged or pressed by the DG. The NOE is discharged qua respondent 2. In so far as respondent 1 is concerned, it is clear that the complainant was staying at the residence H. No. 335, Mangolpur Kalan and that the kitchen therein had a gas connection standing in the name of his father. During his cross examination Shri Narain Singh, the complainant catetorically stated that his father''s gas connection was at H. No. 335, Mangolpur Kalan and that he resided there. He however added that his father was living in a place a kilometer away from where he lived. Even if his father and he did not share the same kitchen, the complainant has clearly admitted that his father''s gas connection was in the house where the complainant lived namely H. No. 335, Manglopur Kalan. Thus, if he had one gas connection where he lived, he cannot get another gas connection in terms of item No. 11 of respondent 2''s pamphlet. Furthermore, the complainant during the cross examination deposed that he did not have in his possession ''even today as ISI mark gas stove or gas tube''. Thus, item 7 of respondent 2''s pamphlet has also not been satisfied.

IN the above premises, respondent 1 was correct in not making available the LPG connection till the said conditions were fulfilled. The other allegation regarding charging of a premium has not been established by way of documentary or other evidence and, therefore, needs no discussion. IN the light of the above discussion, the charges against the respondents are not proved. The NOE is discharged. No order as to costs. N.O.E. discharged.