PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER By way of present revision petition, petitioners/O.Ps have challenged order dated 25.5.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, tate Commission. 2. Brief facts are that Shri K.L. Chadhaomplainant (since deceased) and Respondents No.2 and 3/Complainants No.2 and 3 being his son and daughter respectively, filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh (for short, istrict Forum. During pendency of the proceeding, Complainant K.L. Chadha expired and his legal heirs, namely, his wife Smt. Sushma Chadha-Respondent no.1 has also been brought on record. It has been alleged in the complaint that complainant got himself registered with Premier Gas Service in the year 1987 and paid a total sum of Rs.450/- for a gas cylinder and Rs.50/- for regulator and after the marriage of his son, Complainant applied for the gas connection and after due verification, connection was issued to respondents No.2 & 3 in their own names. After that on his retirement from service, deceased shifted to his own house at Sector 41, Chandigarh on 22.5.2008 and Complainants approached the office of OP-3 i.e. Parnam Gas Agency with all relevant papers for re-registration of the gas connections with them. OP No. 3 straightway told the Complainants that he will register the Complainants only on the condition, that they will all have to purchase new stoves/chullas and regulators from him, lest Complainants will not be registered. The Complainants wrote many letters and gave various representations to the petitioners and other concerned authorities, but they have put deaf ears to the same. 3. The complainants suffered tension and mental agony because of the callous attitude of the OPs and they approached District Forum with the following prayer: - ) To register the Complainants for their L.P.G. connections already standing in their names at their new and permanent address in the case of Complainants No. 2 & 3. ii) To pay Rs.4.50 lacs as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony faced by the Complainant and his family for not registering the Complainants despite of the fact that Complainants are valid connection holders of the OP No.1 for the last more than a decade. iii) To pay Rs.2500/- on account of traveling and misc. charges. iv) To pay Rs.35000/-as a cost of litigation. 4. In reply, petitioners took preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. Further they pleaded that an inspection was carried out by the answering petitioners at the residence of the respondents and it was found that they wanted connections to be fitted in the bed rooms, which is not permissible due to safety and security reasons. Hence the same were not allowed to be transferred by the answering petitioners, as proper premises for affixing gas connections was not there. The respondents were earlier issued connections by Sabharwal Gas Company (OP No.4), whose officials had inspected the house at that time and as there were different kitchens in that house, new connections were issued to the respondents. It was further pleaded that the answering petitioners never asked the respondents to purchase a new stove / chullas and regulator for effecting the transfer of the gas connections. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The District Forum, vide order dated 17.1.2011 allowed the complaint and held; he act of the OPs in depriving them of the use of such gas connections which they are rightly entitled to, is certainly not only deficiency in service on their part, but also indulgence in a gross unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint must succeed in favour of the Complainants and against OPs No. 1 to 3. We order accordingly. 7] The OPs No.1 to 3 shall, jointly and severally, do the following in favour of the Complainants:- (i) The OPs shall release the remaining two LPG gas connections one each in favour of Complainants No. 2 and 3 respectively, forthwith, without insisting upon purchase of new gas stoves/ regulators or any other gas equipment whatsoever by the Complainants or imposing any penalty or charges under whatever name or putting up any other excuse for delaying the matter further. (ii) The OPs shall pay compensation @ Rs.10,000/- to each of Complainants No. 2 and 3 (total Rs.20,000/-) for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain for not releasing the perfectly valid gas connections in their names at the shifted residence for such a long time, thereby violating their own prescribed Rules, despite the Complainants fulfilling all the necessary requirements. (iii) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainants. 8] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay Rs.20,000/-, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.08.2008, till the date of realization, besides complying with the rest of the order as at (i) and (iii) in the foregoings. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed their appeal with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 7. Now petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the State Commission by filing the present revision petition. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that order passed by both the fora below are against the Notification dated 10.9.2009 issued by the Government of India under Essential Commodities Act. As per this Notification each household can have only one LPG gas connection. The interpretation by the District Forum is against the policy of the Government of India. Thus, order passed by both the fora below are liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that respondent no.1 and respondents no.2&3 had got LPG gas connections in the year 1987 and 1996 respectively and these gas connections were treated as valid connections by the petitioners for a number of years. No objection was ever raised during last 10 to 15 years. The trouble arose only when respondent no.1(since deceased) after retiring from the service shifted to his own house and asked for transfer of the gas connections from his previous to new residence. The Notification in question does not apply to the case of the respondents and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by both the fora below. 11. In support Learned counsel for respondents has cited the following judgments; i) A.K. K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and Another 1969(3) Supreme Court Cases 864, ii) Ram Naresh Sinha (DR.) Vs. Amitabh Kumar & others I(2012) CPJ 45 (NC) 12. District Forum, in its order has held; i], The main arguments put forward by the OPs is based on an order dated 26.04.2000, passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, based on an earlier notification issued by the Department on 10th September, 2009. The relevant part of which in this case is Rule 1(a)(i)(gg) and also Clause 1(b)(i), which read as under:- (a)(i)(gg) ouseholdmeans a family consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and dependent parents living together in a dwelling unit having common kitchen:- Provided that a Liquefied Petroleum Gas connection shall be issued only in the name of any adult member of the household by a Government Oil Company under the public distribution system. (b)(i) for the word ersonwherever it occurs, the word ouseholdshall be substituted. In addition to above, OPs have also quoted another clause of the order dated 26.4.2000, as at Sr.No.4(c), which reads as under:- (c) store or use or cause to be stored or used a cylinder filled with the liquefied petroleum gas except in a cool dry, well ventilated and accessible place under cover, away from boiler, open flames, steam pipes or any potential source of heat. vii] The entire case of the OPs is based on the application of the aforesaid clauses and the contention is that the Complainants are not entitled to more than one LPG connection under the rules. Another pleading of the OPs, which is of course not a part of the aforesaid government orders, is that the Complainant No.1 is not having three separate and independent kitchens in his house; whereas, the requirement for providing more than one gas connection is that only one gas connection can be given in one kitchen and, therefore, unless and until the persons in question have three separate and independent kitchens, they can not have three gas connections. viii] On close perusal of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, dated 26th April, 2000, as also the notification dated 10th September, 2009 it reveals that there is no such requirement imposed or laid down by the Government of India that the house in question must have three separate and independent kitchens, in order to avail three gas connections. The only clear cut and unambiguous requirement of the Government is that one gas connection is to be given for one household. The word ouseholdmeans a family consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and dependant parents living together in a dwelling unit having common kitchen. Beyond this requirement, there is no other condition imposed by the Government for availing more than one LPG connection. In the instant case, Complainant No. 1 is having an independent unit of his family, comprising the husband and the wife. Complainant No. 2 is also a married person and living with his wife, which constitutes the second family unit. On the same lines, Complainant No. 3 is also an adult female member, having her independent existence and means of living. She is not a dependent member on Complainant No. 1, who is her father. All said and done, the three Complainants i.e. Complainants No. 1, 2 & 3 are three independent units of the extended and large joint family, who are living in the same house. The requirement of the Govt. is certainly and surely not one gas connection for one house, but one gas connection for one household. Thus, there is a clear cut distinction already made by the Govt. of India between a house and a household. As per present Rules, of the Government of India, there could be more than one gas connection in the same house, provided there is more than one household in that house. In the present case, in our opinion, there are three independent family units, which are a part and parcel of one joint family, operating in the same house. The question whether they are having three separate and independent kitchens in the form of separate physical civil roofed/ walled structures or not, is not relevant at all, as such a requirement has not been imposed by the Government so far on the public at large. The word itchenused in the notification would in fact mean only a separate and distinct cooking area not necessarily a separate fixed physical roofed/ walled structure/ building, comprising four walls and roof with other civil facilities. In a large number of houses in this country, including Govt. houses, cooking is being done not necessarily only in the kitchen structure, but even outside in the Verandah or any other open or covered or enclosed place or even in some make shift space available, which is of course a part of the house itself. Therefore, the argument put forth by the OPs asking again and again that the Complainants were not having three separate and independent kitchens in the form of physical, walled and roofed enclosed structures made of bricks and cement, is just not tenable. Moreover, when the three LPG connections were issued in the year 1987 and 1996 respectively, such a condition was never imposed on the Complainants and the Gas Company (OPs No. 1 & 2) as well as the then Dealer (OP No.4) had liberally allowed the release of three LPG connections in the names of three persons belonging to the same family and also residing in the same house. The pleading of the Complainants in the present case is that the new house where they have now shifted is much bigger and has more space than their old house, where the Company had earlier unhesitatingly and without grudge or even a murmur allowed three gas connections. Complainants further say that OP No. 3 who is the Gas Dealer had insisted upon them to purchase new gas stoves, as well as regulators afresh, with a view to make some undue and unearned profit and this was clearly against the OPsown prescribed Rules. It is a well known fact that this malpractice on the part of some unscrupulous gas Dealers to insist upon the gullible consumers to buy new gas stoves and regulators etc. at exorbitant prices at the time of either taking new connections or at the time of transfer of gas connections forthwith, is widespread and there have been a number of complaints against the Dealers in this regard and in certain cases, the Gas Agencies were booked and their licenses were cancelled on that account. It is emphatically made clear that the Complainants must have suffered immensely at the hands of the OPs and especially, OP No.3, during the last three years or so, without getting any relief or redressal of their grievances at the hands of OPs. ix] As already observed, this being a very old case and relating to the year 2008, the proceedings have been going on for more than two years and during this period, the Complainants have been deprived of availing the second and third gas connections and as such, they had to contend with only one gas connection in the name of Complainant No.1. In all this process, there is no fault on the part of the Complainants and the fault lies entirely and solely with the OPs, especially OP No.3. During the entire proceedings, spread over more than two years, OP No. 3, which is the main party in the case, has remained absent and was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte. As such, there is no defence being put up on behalf of OP No. 3 at all. The only reply filed by OPs, was from OPs No. 1 and 2, which is the Gas Company itself and as usual, they had blindly defended their own Dealer as a matter of routine, without going through the entire case closely, analyzing the same and sifting the truth from falsehood and applying their mind to the suffering undergone by the Complainants. OPs No. 1 & 2 have not been able to explain as to how and why they had released three gas connections in favour of the Complainants in the year 1987 and 1996 respectively, and not only that they allowed the use of these gas connections for more than 15 to 20 years, without ever raising any objection or creating problem. The very fact that the problem arose only when there was a request from the Complainants for transferring the gas connections from one dealer to the other, clearly shows utter and callous malafides on the part of the OPs, which is writ large on the face of it. There is clearly something much more than meets the eye in the present case, and the OPs have miserably failed to explain their conduct in the case by not allowing the transfer of the gas connections from one house to the other one but located within the same city of Chandigarh. By and large, the process of transfer is a very routine procedure, which should have been allowed in general as a matter of course, without raising any objection by any one. 13. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed; 6. According to the complainants, when they shifted to the present accommodation i.e. H.No. 673, Sector 41A, Chandigarh, they obtained the transfer vouchers from the previous supplier (Sabharwal Gas Agency) and approached OP-3 for transfer of connection. It is mentioned in para no. 7 of the complaint that OP-3 told them that they would have to purchase new Stoves/Chullas, and Regulators from him, otherwise he would not register the transfer. He also told that he was highly linked with higher-ups, including bureaucrats and other senior officials of OP-1 (appellant) and had close relations with OP-2, Rajiv Bhargava, who was Area Sales Manager of OP-1 at Chandigarh. Rajiv Bhargava, under whose patronage OP-3 was adopting this unfair trade practice, was joined as OP-2 in the complaint. He had an opportunity to deny these allegations, when OP-1 prepared an affidavit dated 14.11.2008 of Sh. Rajiv Bhargava, Area, Sales Manager but the said OP did not have the guts to deny these allegations and it appears, his name was rubbed by putting fluid on his name and instead of his name, the name of S.Malik, Senior Regional Manager, was mentioned who signed the affidavit. The OP-3 also did not come forward to file a reply, to deny if new Stoves/Chullas, and Regulators, were not sought to be sold to the complainants and if it was made a precondition for granting a connection. However, S.Malik, Senior Regional Manager, has denied these contentions in his reply to para number 7 of the complaint and affidavit. In the verification, he has mentioned that the averments were true and correct to his knowledge. He did not mention from where and whom he derived the said knowledge that new Stoves/Chullas, and Regulators were not thrust on the Complainants before granting connection by OP-3. We are therefore of the opinion that the allegations contained in para 7 appear to be correct and it was due to this reason that the complainants have been harassed by the OPs by interpreting the Order 2000, in a manner to the detriment of the complainants. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, therefore, cannot be said to be contrary to rule and law. 14. The main defence taken by the petitioners in its written statement that deceased respondent had approached M/s. Parnam Gas Agency, who is an authorised dealer of the respondents for transfer of connections and physical verification was got done, in which house had only one kitchen and thus only one gas connection was activated and the rest of the connections were not activated due to security reasons. In the written statement, petitioners have never relied upon the aforesaid Notification. 15. Be that as it may, the District Forum has considered the Notification in great detail and has arrived at the right conclusion. Moreover, the Notification dated 10.9.2009 relied upon by the petitioners says that it shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette. It is nowhere provided in this Notification that it will have retrospective effect from any previous dates. Thus, under these circumstances, this Notification is not applicable to the case of the respondents who were having three separate gas connections prior to the issuance of the Notification, in question. 16. It is well settled that under section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; lso, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice,which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora. 18. In view of the concurrent findings of facts given by fora below, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21(b) of the Act. 19. Hence, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 20. No order as to cost.