Haryana

Ambala

CC/190/2014

RAJNISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT PETROLEUM - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

          Complaint Case No.:  190 of 2014

Date of Institution    : 23.07.2014

Date of Decision   : 24-04-2017

 

Rajnish Kumar son of Sh. Ram Lagan alias Ram Lakhan, resident of House No. 31, Indira Colony, Jandli, Ambala City, Tehsil and District Ambala, Haryana.

 

……….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.       Manager-cum-Incharge Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Village Alamgir, Lalru, (Near Derabassi-Punjab).   

 

2.       Proprietor of Bhagwati Gas Agency, Bharat Petroleum Agency, Ambala City, Store at Jandli (Ambala).  

 

          ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

CORAM:    SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. K.C. Jain, counsel for the OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

                    Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that the complainant is having the domestic gas connection of the company of the respondent No. 1 since long time and the connection is in the name of complainant. It is submitted that the government has instructed to issue the Domestic Consumption cylinders to the consumer on subsidy which was coming to the bank account of the consumers after getting the Aadhar card registered with the concerned gas company. Being the law abiding citizen of the country, the complainant has also adopted the scheme and has registered his Aadhar card No. alongwith bank detail with the respondent/opposite party. The gas connection number of the complainant is 16189 (double barrel connection). It is further submitted that the complainant has consumed five cylinder under the scheme of the govt. in question and the concerned gas agency i.e. the respondent No. 2 has transferred the amount of subsidy to the concerned bank account of the complainant only for two times. The OP No. 2 has not transferred the subsidy amount to the complainant’s bank account for the cylinder consumed on 28-01-2014, 21-02-2014 and 27-02-2014. The complainant has enquired about the subsidy from the OP No. 2 on which they assured the complainant that the subsidy of the said cylinders will come definitely in the bank account of the complainant. But after waiting for a long period, the complainant has enquired the matter from the OP No. 2 but they advised to enquire the said matter from the OP No. 1 at Lalru, Punjab. On which the complainant enquired the matter from the OP No. 1 but no satisfactory reply given by them.  As such, the complainant has contended that Ops have adopted unfair trade practice with the complainant. Hence, the complainant through present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through their counsel.  Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action.  On merits, it is submitted that the amount of subsidy is directly transferred to the Bank account of the LPG-consumer under DBTL scheme duly floated by the Govt. of India and for the purpose the LPG consumer is required to get his Bank account number registered with gas agency. The complainant had also got registered is bank account No. 79 of the Axis Bank, Ambala City with the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Bhagwati Gas Service, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City, so that the subsidy amount be credited in his account for any on behalf of Govt. of India. However, it may be submitted here that Bhagwati Gas Service (OP No. 2) is the delivery distributor of the Bharat Petroleum Copn. Ltd. It is admitted that the complainant has consumed five LPG Cylinders under the said scheme of DBTL of the Govt. of India. The amount of subsidy against each of the five delivered cylinders was duly transferred by the concerned authorities to the said bank account of the complainant/LPG consumer. However, out of these 5 LPG Cylinders consumed by the complainant, only two subsidy (s) amounting to Rs. 828.75/- against LPG cylinder deliver on 28-01-2014 vide cash memo No. 14572260 and Rs. 726.25/- against OPG cylinder delivered on 04-02-2014 against cash memo No. 14574757 were successfully transferred and credited to the bank account of the complainant on 30-01-2014 and 07-02-2014, respectively.  Rest of the three amounts of the subsidy of Rs. 726.25 each were also transferred on 27-08-2014 to the said registered bank accounts of the complainant, but said amount (s) of the subsidy in question could not be credited to the said bank of the complainant as his account was found to be already either closed or transferred as per annexure R1 and as such the said amount (s) of the subsidy for three delivered LPG Cylinders were reverted back to the concerned authority. Thereafter the complainant did not contact the OPs for the purpose nor got registered his new bank account in lieu of his old bank account with the respondent No. 2  for receiving the subsidy and as such the amount (s) of subsidy in question could not be credited to his account. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, whereas the complainant himself responsible for not getting the subsidy in question. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                   Op No.2 raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint & suppression of material facts. The contents of the reply on behalf of the OP No. 2 are corroborated with the averments of the OP No. 1.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                  

3.                In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Jagir Singh as Annexure RX along with documents as Annexure R1 and closed their evidence. 

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record very carefully.  Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has consumed five cylinder under the scheme of the govt. in question and the concerned gas agency i.e. the respondent No. 2 has transferred the amount of subsidy to the concerned bank account of the complainant only for two times. The OP No. 2 has not transferred the subsidy amount to the complainant’s bank account for the cylinder consumed on 28-01-2014, 21-02-2014 and 27-02-2014.

                   On the other hand contention of the counsel for the OPs that out of these 5 LPG Cylinders consumed by the complainant, two subsidy (s) amounting to Rs. 828.75/- against LPG cylinder deliver on 28-01-2014 vide cash memo No. 14572260 and Rs. 726.25/- against OPG cylinder delivered on 04-02-2014 against cash memo No. 14574757 were successfully transferred and credited to the bank account of the complainant on 30-01-2014 and 07-02-2014, respectively.  Rest of the three amounts of the subsidy of Rs. 726.25 each were also transferred on 27-08-2014 to the said registered bank account of the complainant, but said amount (s) of the subsidy in question could not be credited to the said bank of the complainant as his account was found to be already either closed or transferred as per annexure R1 and as such the said amount (s) of the subsidy for three delivered LPG Cylinders were reverted back to the concerned authority as annexure R1.

                   At the time of arguments it is averred by the counsel for the opposite parties that the subsidy in question for all three cylinder had also been credited to the registered Bank account of the complainant. On which, complainant was directed to produce the statement of his bank account, but he failed to produce the same despite giving opportunity.

          Thereafter, counsel for the opposite parties has produce the statement, vide which the subsidy of all three cylinders were transferred on 30-01-2014, 25-07-2015 and 25-07-2015, respectively and further cleared that the subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 21-02-2014 and 27-02-2014 was duly transferred and credited by the concerned authority to his new Bank account with the bank of Baroda on 25-07-2015, however, the subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 28-01-2014 was duly transferred in the Axis Bank account of the complainant on 30-01-2014.  As such, there is no fault on their part and they have not played any unfair trade practice. 

5.                In view of above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has already received the subsidy in question. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the present complaint is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED: 24-04-2017                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

                                   

                                                                                                (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                            MEMBER