MANJUSHA GAS AGENCY vs BHARAT FUEL CO. LTD.

BHARAT Fuel Company Ltd. (Rl hereafter) is engaged in the business of importing, bottling and marketing of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Ms. Ritu Sharma are its Managing Director and Director respectively (R2 and R3 hereafter)

MANJUSHA Gas Agency (applicant hereafter) is the authorised dealer/distributor of Rl. The applicant has moved an application under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969 charging the respondents of having indulged in certain unfair and restrictive trade practices and seeking compensation for the loss and damage suffered by it. The facts as silted by the applicant are briefly as follows : R-1 advertised for appointing its dealer/ distributors for the sale of LPG supplied by it. It demanded every applicant for dealership/ distributorship to tender an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- as security alongwith the application. The applicant responded and deposited the stipulated amount, upon which R-l appointed it as its dealer/distributor and an agreement was executed on 8th March, 1994.

The applicant made a further payment of Rs: 1,41,900/- on 4th October, 1995 and a further amount of Rs. 3,000/- on 12th October, 1995. despite making the aforesaid payments, R-l did not supply LPG in adequate quantities. According to the applicant, he made a payment of Rs. 4,396/- towards freight charges which should have been paid by R- 1. When the applicant pressed the respondents to supply LPG by refilling the empty cylinders, the latter directed the former to pay an advance of Rs. 25,000/- for the next supply. The applicant complied with this by paying the said amount on 13th January, 1996.

ON 11th April, 1996, the respondents directed the applicant to get the cylinders refilled from Hindustan Domestic Oil and Gas Company, which however refused to supply gas. Similarly on 14th May, 1996, R-1 advised Asian Gases at Anand and Jyoti Gases at Mehsana to supply gas to the applicant but they too refused to supply the gas. The applicant demanded the monies deposited with R-l to be refunded but in vain. Charging the respondents of having indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practices, the applicant has prayed that the Commission may direct the respondents to supply LPG to it or in the alternative direct them to refund the amounts deposited by it of Rs. 2,99,853/- with interest. It has also claimed compensation towards financial loss incurred by it towards expenditure on stationery, advertisement, godown and furniture, litigation etc. It has also claimed compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Management of the applicant.

WHEN the compensation application was communicated to the respondents, they did not immediately respond, but on the second date of hearing, namely 3rd March, 1997, one Shri Satish Chander, Supervisor in R-l appeared and he was directed to furnish the reply of the respondents within two weeks of that date subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the applicant. Subsequently the respondents did not put in their appearance and proceedings continued ex-parte against them. The applicant furnished the affidavit of Ms. Manjula, Proprietor of the applicant alongwith the supporting documents. We gave a hearing to Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant after giving opportunity to the respondents to participate at the time of arguments. The Advocate for the applicant furnished a synopsis of his arguments.

IN the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents and the absence of even a reply to the compensation application, we have no option except to accept the averments of the applicant and the affidavit of Ms. Manjula, proprietor of the applicant. It is manifest from the documents produced before us that the respondents have failed to supply LPG to the applicant as originally represented and agreed to. The various attempts of the applicant to secure supply of LPG from the respondents through refilling of cylinders evoked no response. Having pocketed the security deposit and other amounts from the applicant, the respondents merely on two occasions namely 11th April, 1996 and 14th May, 1996 directed Hindustan Domestic Oil and Gas Company, Asian Gases and Jyoti Gases to refill the cylinders and supply LPG to the applicant. All the three parties according to the applicant refused to supply. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the respondents have indulged in mis- representations and false representations being unfair trade practices attracting Section 36A(1) of the Act and in manipulation of the conditions of delivery of LPG by dishonouring their promises thus imposing costs and restrictions on the applicant being restrictive trade practices attracting Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act.

THE applicant has suffered financial loss and damage as a consequence of the aforesaid unfair and restrictive trade practices. THE applicant is entitled to compensation. Regarding the quantum of compensation, a statement has been filed by the applicant at pages 51-52 of its application. In that statement, the net amount to be refunded is shown as Rs. 1,49,853.92 in addition to the security deposit amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Thus the aggregate principal amount refundable by the respondents works out to Rs. 2,74,853.92. THE applicant is entitled to the said amount of Rs. 2,74,853.92 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 13th Jan., 1996 (date from which the applicant has sought interest) upto the date of payment. In addition, we allow compensation towards expenses "on stationery, advertisement, godown and furniture etc. of Rs. 25,000/-. We allow cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- including the cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on 3rd March, 97. Towards the mental agony suffered by the Management of the applicant, we allow an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. THE respondents shall pay the aforesaid amount to the applicant within six weeks of the date of this order and file an affidavit in compliance within the same time frame. Compensation granted. _________________