MOHINDER GAS ENTERPRISES Vs. JAGDISH POSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition filed against the Order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh by which the order of District Forum, Ambala City dismissing the complaints separately filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (herein) were set aside and the two complaints were remanded to the District Forum for their trial on merits.

(2.) The facts are that the present Petitioner M/s. Mohindra Gas Enterprises holds distributorship of L.P.G. (liquified petroleum gas) for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.3 herein). Respondent No. I Mr. Jagdish Poswal and Respondent No.2 Mr. Baij Nath had separately registered with the said distributor for LPG connection in the year 1985. They were told by the distributor at that time that they would be informed of their turn for getting the gas connection when their bookings matured. Both those persons waited patiently for information from the distributor regarding the release of their respective gas connection but to no avail. In November, 1990 they came to know that many other persons junior to them in the order of booking of gas connection with the distributor had been supplied gas connections. Both those persons approached the distributor who told them that their gas connections have been cancelled as they did not come to take the same. The distributor further told them that if they were still anxious to have the gas connection they would have to purchase gas stove (chulla) from him. The price quoted for the gas stove was exorbitant. The complainants refused to yield to the pressure of the distributor and filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that they were never informed by the distributor about maturity of their booking and he be directed to release their gas connections.

(3.) The distributor in both the complaint cases took identical defence. According to him, the complainants failed to take the gas connection within the stipulated period of 90 days when information about the maturity of their gas connection was conveyed to them. The gas connection could now be released only if No Objection Certificate was obtained from the Respondent No. 3 (herein). A preliminary objection was also taken on behalf of the distributor that the complaints had no locus standi to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (for short the Act) as no money whatsoever was paid to him at the time of registration and consequently no consideration either for the purchase of goods or hiring of the services had been paid.