PRATAP JYOTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 Sec.33 (1) (b) and Sec.2 (o) (ii) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The NOE was issued under Sec.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.

(3.) 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.