State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Sh.Maman Chand on 25 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 693 to 702 & 771, 1703 of 2010 Date of Institution: 26.05.2010, 14.05.2010 & 18.11.2010 Date of Decision: 25.05.2010 Appeal No.693 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana). Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus 1.
Sh.Maman Chand son of Sh.Ram Chander reisent of village & PO Madlauda Waisor Road, Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.694 of 2010 Sales Officer Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Gulab Singh son of Sh.Sish Ram, resident of village Khandra, Sub Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.695 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Lehna Singh son of Sh.Deyi Ram, resident of VPO Khandra, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.696 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Tara Chand son of Sh.Nek Chand resident of VPO Untla, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.697 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Satyawan Singh son of Sh.Dharam Singh resident of Village Khukhrana, PO Assan Kalan, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.698 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Ram Kawar son of Sh.Khem Chand resident of Village Madlauda, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.699 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Radhey Shyam son of Sh.Babu Ram resident of Village Madlauda, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.700 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Kali Ram son of Sh.Churia Ram, resident of Village Khukhrana, PO Assan Kalan, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.701 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Sube Singh son of Sh.Rishal Singh resident of VPO Khukrana, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.702 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Ramesh Kumar son of Sh.Hari Singh, resident of VPO Khukrana, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.771 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus
1. Sh.Jasbir Singh son of Sh.Pale Ram, resident of VPO Mor Majra, District Panipat.
Respondent/Complainant
2. The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Co-operative Consumers Store Limited, Assan, (Panipat) through its President Raj Kumar (Distributor Code No.624720).
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 Appeal No.1703 of 2010 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Chief Regional Manager-LPG-cum-Duly Constituted Assembly, Jind LPG Regional Office, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).
Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 & 3 Versus
1. Sh.Suresh Kumar son of Sh.Kali Ram.
2. Dalbir Singh son of Fateh Singh.
3. Rajinder Kumar son of Kari Ram.
All residents of village Attawala, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
4. Dharampal Assistant O/o BDPO, District Panipat.
5. Mehar Singh son of Sh.Jeet Ram, R/o VPO Kurana, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.
6. Inder Singh, Master resident of Village Madlauda, District Panipat.
7. Ranbir son of Sh.Hazari Lal, resident of Village Attawala, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat.
Respondents/Complainants
8. The Gas Agency Thermal of Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. through the Panipat Thermal Employees Co-operative Consumer Store Limited, Assan, District Panipat.
Performa Respondent/OP No.1 BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Mr.B.M.Bedi, Judicial Member.
For the Parties : Mr.Atul Nehra, Advocate for appellant.
Respondent Sube Singh in appeal No.701 and respondent in appeal No.702, in person.
None for remaining respondents.
O R D E R Justice R.S. Madan, President:
The above mentioned twelve appeals have been taken together by us as common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals.
Appeal No.771/2010 titled as M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Jasbir Singh and another has arisen out of the order dated 23.4.2010, appeal No.1703/2010 has arisen out of order dated 29.9.2010 whereas the remaining appeals No. 693/2010 to 702/2010 have arisen out orders dated 8.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat whereby respective complaints filed by the complainants have been accepted.
The complainant had obtained LPG connections from the opposite parties and they were enjoying the aforesaid facility since the dates their connections were released on different dates. Thereafter the opposite parties stopped supplying LPG cylinders to the complainants. Legal notices were served upon the opposite parties but to no effect. Forced by these circumstances, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Panipat by filing their respective complaints seeking direction to the opposite parties to supply filled LPG cylinders to them and to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaints by filing their separate the written statements. In the written statement filed by opposite party No.1 it was pleaded that The Panipat Thermal Employees Primary Cooperative Consumers Store Ltd., PTPS, Panipat was constituted for the benefit and welfare of all the employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station to provide service to its members on no profit no loss basis. The opposite party No.2 vide letter No.JSs:LPG dated 19.2.1997 launched a scheme named as Tatkal Scheme to provide new LPG connections to the public at large subject to fulfillment of requisite formalities. The said scheme came into existence on 20.2.1997. The opposite party vide letter dated 23.10.1998 allotted 100 new gas connections to opposite party No.1, which the opposite party No.1 allotted to different customers and intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party No.2. Weekly report as required was also being given to the opposite party No.2. The Sales Officer, Jind issued a letter dated 28.7.2008 to the opposite party No.1 directing to transfer all the customers who are outsiders and are not employees of Panipat Thermal to HP gas agency, Panipat or as they required. Thus, the opposite party No.1 stopped supply of LPG cylinders to the complainants.
Opposite party No.2 in its written statement stated that the opposite party No.1 was authosied to issue connections to the employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station living in the Thermal Colony only. The opposite party denied that the Tatkal Scheme was launched for outsiders, rather, took the plea that the complainants had obtained connections in connivance with the opposite party No.1. It was further stated that the complainants were asked to get transferred their respective LPG connections to some regular distributorship of the opposite party No.2 and they were assured the regular supply of refills at their doorstops. Denying any kind of deficiency in service on their parties, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted complaints and issued directions to the opposite parties to continue the supply of LPG cylinders to the complainants regularly and further the opposite parties were restrained from transferring the gas connections of the complainants to any other gas agency without their consent. Cost of litigation was awarded Rs.2200/- in each case.
Aggrieved against the orders passed by the District Forum, the opposite party- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, has filed the instant appeals.
Heard.
On behalf of the appellant-opposite party it is argued by Shri Atul Nehra, Advocate that from the evidence brought on record it manifest that the Tatkal Scheme was launched by the opposite party No.2 for the employees of Panipat Thermal Plant, residing within the boundaries of the Thermal but the complainants managed to get LPG connections in connivance with the opposite party No.1 though the outsiders cannot be allowed to entertain in the area of Thermal Plant. Shri Nehra has further argued that when this fact came to the notice of the opposite party No.2, the complainants were disallowed to enter the Thermal premises to get connections and thus the supply of LPG cylinders was stopped to them and they were asked to get transferred their respective LPG connections to some regular distributorship of the opposite party No.2.
Shri Nehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has further argued that while deciding similar situated controversy in a bunch of cases titled as Revision Petition No.901 of 2010, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. versus Ramphal and anr, decided on 07.03.2011, the Honble National Commission has observed as under:-
Respondent No.2 was given a specified area of distribution i.e. the employees of PTPS Township at Assan, Panipat. Respondent No.2 was effectively barred for affecting the sale outside the said territory specified in the agreement. Petitioner in view of clause 1(b) of the agreement was at liberty to appoint more dealers in the said territory and reduce, restrict, modify or alter the area of the dealership territory. The conclusion arrived by the fora below that transfer of the gas connection of the complainant to a place faw away from his residence will create hardship and in connivance is hypothetical and not substantiated.
Both the for below have failed to appreciate that the distributorship was created to ensure free, equitable and timely supply of LPG to the employees of the PTPS Township for whose benefit the LPG agency was set up exclusively in the premises of PTPS at Assan, Panipat. The order granting relief to the customers who have procured LPG connections from the respondent No.2 and who are not the employees of the PTPS or residing within the Thermal colony will be against the mandate of the dealership agreement and the rationale purpose for which the dealership was created. Such an action, if upheld, will create a smooth way to the other distributors in the country to commit such irregularities and such a relief will create chaos in the whole system of supply of LPG made in the country.
In view of the above observation, the Honble National Commission while accepting the revision petitions, set aside the order passed by District Forum and State Commission.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to the decision delivered by the Honble National Commission in case M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. versus Ramphal and anr (Supra) and as such the impugned orders passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, all these appeals are accepted, the impugned orders under challenge in these appeals are set aside and the complaints are dismissed. The complainants are at liberty to get their LPG connections transferred to some other agency nearest to their residence and for that purpose they shall complete the formalities expeditiously so that they may not feel the pinch of regular supply of LPG to them by their respective Gas Agencies. Under the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principle of equity and natural justice, the opposite party shall supply LPG cylinders to the complainants for a period of one month from the date of dispatch of copies of this order, to do the needful as directed. On the expiry of the period of one month, the appellant would discontinue to supply gas cylinders to the complainants. Copy of the order be sent to the parties immediately.
The original judgment be attached with appeal No.693/2010 and certified copies be attached alongwith the remaining appeals.
The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- in each case deposited at the time of filing respective appeals, be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 25.05.2011 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member