This order shall dispose of the above captioned revision petitions as the facts and point of law involved in all these revision petitions is same. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short, the State Commission) has also disposed of the appeals giving rise to the present revision petitions by a common order.

          The facts are taken from revision petition No.901 of 2010. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:

M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, petitioner herein, which was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum, has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 9^th December 2009 passed by the State Commission in First Appeals nos.1762 to 1773 of 2009 whereby the State Commission has affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short, the District Forum).

          Petitioner appointed respondent No.2 as distributor for supply of LPG to the employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station, Assan, Panipat (for short, the PTPS) on 6^th November, 1993. As per clause1.2.2 of this letter it was clearly stipulated as hereunder:

          “1.2.2 Under no circumstances LPG connections will be released to persons who are not permanent employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station. Even by amendment and resolutions no LPG connections will be released to persons who were not employees of the power station. It is intended that refill supplies will be restricted to the employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station only.”

          The dealership agreement dated 6^th November, 1993 was valid for a period of 10 years. The agreement was thereafter superseded by another agreement dated 11^th October, 2005 for a period of five years on the same terms and conditions as in the earlier agreement    dated 6^th November, 1993. Besides the distribution area being confined to the PTPS Township all the conditions as stipulated therein were specifically repeated in the fresh agreement dated 11^th October, 2005. From the reading of the letter of intent dated 30^th August 1993, dealership agreement dated 6^th November, 1993 and 11^th October, 2005; it is clear that the respondent No.2 was given a direct LPG project distributorship at the PTPS and respondent No.2 was authorized to issue connections to the employees of the PTPS living in the Thermal colony only. The respondent No.2 was contractually barred from effecting sales outside the said territory specified in the above agreements.

          In pursuance of the policy of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas a scheme to provide new connections, known as instant LPG connection, was to be made available through the existing network of dealers/distributors. Vide letter dated 19^th February 1997, Tatkal Scheme to provide new LPG connections was circulated and vide letter dated 23^rd October, 1998, respondent No.2 was allotted 100 new connections under the Tatkal Scheme announced by the petitioner Corporation. It was implicit understanding that in terms of the dealership agreement, the fresh LPG connections to be issued under the Tatkal Scheme by the respondent No.2 were to be confined to the township of the PTPS and that no fresh connection could be issued in any area or territory to any person whatsoever who was not living in the Thermal Colony in the Township of the PTPS.

          Later on it transpired that the respondent No.2 issued the LPG gas connections to outsiders including the respondent No.1 which were not the employees of the PTPS within the premises of the PTPS. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the irregularities of the respondent No.2 in providing the LPG Gas Connections to the customers living outside the territory as specified in the dealership agreements which is violative of the dealership agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, the petitioner advised all the concerned consumers including respondent No.1 to transfer their LPG connections to other gas agencies of their respective areas. Accordingly, before the filing of the complaint by the respondent No.1 his gas connection stood transferred to M/s. Krishna Gas Agency, who is another distributor serving the consumers of the petitioner Corporation in the territory of residence of the respondent No.1. After the petitioner came to know about the irregularities being committed by the respondent No.2 in releasing the LPG connections outside its distributorship area, the petitioner issued directions for the transfer of these unauthorized LPG gas connections either to M/s. Krishna Gas Agency or to M/s. Mahiwal Gas Agency according to the convenience of various customers residing in the territories being served by such agencies. The said agencies are also the distributors of the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner has also initiated action against the respondent No.2 for violating the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement between the parties.

          Aggrieved by the action taken by the petitioner, respondent No.1 filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and the petitioner in the District Forum which was numbered as complaint No.151 of 2008. It is stated in the complainant that he had booked a gas connection under Tatkal Scheme under which new LPG connections are provided to the public at large subject to the fulfillment of requisite formalities. It is stated that the said scheme came into existence w.e.f.20^th February 1997 whereby a connection is being provided to any person in urgent need within one week against the one time lumpsum non refundable amount of Rs.4,000/- plus payment of normal security deposits for cylinder and other equipments. It is also stated that the petitioner had allotted 100 new connections to the respondent No.2 who allotted the same to various consumers. It is stated that the Sales Office, Jind issued a letter dated 28^th July 2008 to respondent No.2 directing it to transfer all the connections of the customers who are outsiders and are not the employees of the PTPS to other distributors.

          Petitioner on being served entered appearance and filed the reply. Stand taken by the petitioner was that there is neither any privity of contract between the complainant and petitioner so the complainant has no locus standii to file the complaint. It was also stated that the respondent No.2 was authorized to issue connections to the employees of the PTPS living in the Thermal Colony only. The petitioner denied that it extended the distribution area of respondent No.2. It was stated that the petitioner launched Tatkal Sceme but it was not available to the complainant and he has obtained LPG connection in collusion with the respondent No.2. It is also stated that the petitioner has already requested the respondent No.1 to get the connection transferred to the regular distributor of petitioner and he will be supplied cylinders/refill at his doorstep by the regular LPG distributor of the petitioner. Petitioner denied all the averments in the complaint and also denied any deficiency in service on its part. The affidavits by way of evidence were filed.

The District Forum after hearing the complaint allowed the same and directed the petitioner and the respondent No.2 to continue the supply the LPG gas cylinder to the complainant/respondent No.1 regularly and further restrained the petitioner and the respondent No.2 from transferring the gas connection of the complainant to any other gas agency without his consent. Costs of Rs.2,200/- were also imposed.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine.

With the consent of the counsel for the parties we dispose of these revision petitions at the preliminary stage.

Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

 Respondent No.2 was allotted the LPG dealership on 6^th November, 1993 at the premises of the PTPS. As per clause 9 of the allotment letter it was stipulated as under:

“9. Enrolment of Customers

You will be required to release LPG connections to persons who are permanent employees of Panipat Thermal Power Station and are residing in the PTPS Township.”

It was also stated in the said appointment letter that respondent No.2 will be directed by the petitioner from time to time on the conduct and manner of running the distributorship as per policies of the petitioner Corporation.

The terms and conditions of the LPG distributorship at the PTPS were stipulated and agreed between the parties. In clause 1 (a) it was clearly stipulated that the distributorship area of the respondent No.2 shall be township of the PTPS.

The aforesaid appointment was subject to certain conditions. Few of the relevant conditions read as under:

“(i) NO GUARANTEE OF AREA: RIGHT OF CORPORATION TO SELL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:

The Corporation reserves the right at all times during the continuance of this agreement to make direct sales of HP Gas to Central or State Government Departments, Government Companies, Railways, Military, Municipal Authorities and other public bodies and authorities without any reference to the dealer and on such direct sales the dealer shall not be entitled to any remuneration, commission or allowance of whatsoever nature.

(ii) PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL DEALER

The Corporation reserves the right, without any references to or consent of the dealer to appoint one or more additional dealers in the same territory referred to in clause 1(a) above and such additional dealer or dealers shall be entitled to make sales of LPG Gas in the same territory without any objection from the dealer and the dealer shall not be entitled to any claim, any over-riding remuneration commission or allowance for the purpose.

(iv) DEALER NOT TO SELL OUTSIDE HIS TERRITORY

The dealer will during the continuance of this agreement confine himself to effect the sales in the area or territory specified herein above but the Corporation shall be entitled without the consent of the dealer to enlarge, reduce, increase or modify such area or territory to such other place as may from time to time be authorized by the Corporation in writing.”

Still further, in clause 29 of the agreement between the parties it was agreed and settled conclusively as follows:

          “29. Any acquiescence or waiver by the Corporation of any delay, breach or default committed by the dealer shall not be deemed to be or considered as estoppel against the Corporation or prevent the Corporation from effecting termination of the agreement under any of the aforesaid provisions (including clauses 27 and 28) in respect of any matter or transaction antecedent of whatsoever nature.”

So keeping in view the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement, it is clear that the area of distribution of the LPG connections to the respondent No.2 was clearly defined and the same being the PTPS the connections could only be allotted to the permanent employees of the PTPS. Same procedure would apply in case of allotment of the LPG connection under the Tatkal Scheme. Respondent No.1 has got the connection allotted in his favour in collusion with the respondent No.2 illegally as he is neither an employee of the PTPS nor is he the resident in the Thermal Colony. The allotment of gas connection was contrary to the agreed terms and conditions of the dealership agreement and the letter of intent and the same was an illegal connection.

Petitioner instead of canceling the allotment has transferred it to other distributorship agency within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is living and with the same assurance that the supply will be made at his doorstep. Supply of gas has not been discontinued to the respondent. Supply of LPG to the complainant has been continued by another agency at the doorstep. The complainant had taken the connection from the respondent No.2 in violation of the terms and conditions subject to which the agency was given to respondent No.2. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

Complaint filed was totally misconceived and not maintainable under law. Transfer of the LPG connection of the complainant to another dealer does not amount to a consumer dispute and is not a deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no promise or contractual obligation owning to which the respondent No.1 was to be supplied LPG by respondent No.2 only. The petitioner is well within its right to distribute its dealers’ territories to ensure fair, equitable and efficient delivery of LPG to all its customers. Right of the complainant to get LPG gas has not been curtailed or infringed. The complainant has been assured of the supply of LPG gas by home delivery on telephonic request or by direct booking from another dealer.

          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 far away from his residence will create hardship and inconvenience is hypothetical and not substantiated.

          Both the fora 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.     

          During the pendency of these revision petitions we had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating the details regarding the comparative distance in kilometers from the village of the respondent No.1 up to the various operating distributors of the petitioner Corporation and the distance from his village up to the Gas Agency/respondent No.2 from where the LPG connection was obtained by the respondent previously. Petitioner has filed the affidavit indicating the distance from where the gas can be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has also specifically stated in para 5 of his affidavit that the distributor of the petitioner shall supply the LPG gas to the consumer by home delivery on telephonic request or by direct booking with the dealer. If that be the case, the variance of distance of the dealership from the house of the customer for supply of LPG is immaterial.

          For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the fora below cannot be sustained and consequently set aside with no order as to costs.

Counsel for the respondent has pointed out to us that the petitioner has not paid the litigation charges of Rs.1,500/- to each of the respondents as per the direction issued on 2^nd August, 2010 by this Commission. Counsel for the petitioner has assured us that the payment as per the direction issued by this Commission on 2^nd August, 2010 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- to each of the complainants in the various complaints shall be made within four weeks in case the same has not already been made.