Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/152/2023

SUKINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN SHARMA ADV

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDL. BENCH]

 

 

 

Appeal No.	:	152 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	05.07.2023
Date of Decision	:	01.04.2024

 

 

Sukinder Kumar son of Sh. Atma Ram, Resident of House No.1965, Sector 45-B (Burail), Chandigarh.

….. Appellant

 

V e r s u s

 

1.       The Canteen Stores Department, through DDGCS, Integrated HQ Ministry of Defence (Army) Quartermaster General’s Branch, Canteen Services Directorate, West Block-III, Wing-III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066.

 

2.       The Unit Run Canteen, Chandimandir, District Panchkula, Haryana, through its Incharge.

….Respondents

 

3.       M/s Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 66, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

 

4.       State Bank of India, SCO 2915-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

…. Proforma Respondents

 

BEFORE:

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:    Sh. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate for Respdt Nos. 1 & 2 (on V.C).

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/686/2022.

 

2]             For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3]                Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant/Appellant that he is an ex-serviceman who retired from Indian Navy as AA(W)2/CPO on 31.08.2001. He was issued PPO No.09/97/B/02583/2001 and issued Canteen Smart Card No. GB03060753208600P02 (Chip No. 5311512004941334), the purchase limit/ value of the said card for AFD (Against Firm Demand) and non-AFD is at par with other JCO ranks viz. MCPO-II and MCPO-I (Master Chief Petty Officer).  He applied for the purchase of car i-20 Asta through Canteen Stores Department (OP No.1) via their online portal, to be purchased from Opposite Party No.3 - M/s Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Phase-II, Chandigarh by paying advance booking of ₹11,000/- on 05.05.2022 and it took a period of around 03 months to get availability certificate from the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.3. While applying for the car, complainant filled all the desired information in the portal and ticked the JCO rank in the entitlement category as he retired as CPO from Navy which is equivalent to the JCO rank and there was no column in the online portal JCO (pay level 6). The CSD Car Buying Process, 2022, updated and revised clearly states that JCO will be eligible for cars with 1.5 Litre Petrol Cars having ex-showroom price of ₹10.00 lakh and smaller 1.2 Litre Engine Cars having ex-showroom price of ₹9.00 lakh. The complainant is eligible for purchase of the said car as he retired as CPO which is a JCO rank and the said car falls within the purview of the above mentioned criteria with 1.2 Litre Petrol Car having ex-showroom price of ₹8,62,314/- which is clearly less than ₹9.00 lakh. To meet with the funds for the car, the complainant took a loan of ₹3.00 lakh from State Bank of India on 19.07.2022 of which two installments are already paid. The remaining amount was paid through RTGS on 21.07.2022 to Opposite Party No.1. Upon the payment of the entire amount, an e-mail was received by the complainant regarding the acceptance of the demand, processing of the documents and that the issue of the local supply order will take 03 working days.  However, the online portal revealed that supply order has been released and accordingly the complainant visited the HQ Western Command Chandimandir, Unit Run Canteen to collect the same. But there the complainant was informed that he is not eligible for purchasing this model of the car as he is exceeding the limit of his purchase and at the time of making the application he had to tick against the category 'OR' in the entitlement category which is unsatisfying and humiliating as he retired as JCO and there was no further explanation as to "OR", the said term being wholly vague. It has been averred that anomaly arose because of the rank in the portal of CSD entitlement column. The issue occurred due to CSD portal not being clear and faulty and the fault cannot be attributed to the complainant. Due to this fault in the portal the complainant has suffered huge loss, harassment and mental agony at the hands of Opposite Party No.1. Finally he served a legal notice dated 30.07.2022. He also sent e-mail dated 03.08.2022 to the Opposite Parties pointing out that the limit was not adhered in respect of similarly situated persons. He also was sent email dated 14.08.2022 by Opposite Parties regarding an e-mail received from the dealer namely, M/s Joshi Hyundai Chandigarh asking the complainant to provide LS order within 05 days and have given last date as 18.08.2022 and thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 will sell the car. He also sent e-mail dated 15.08.2022 in respect of subsequent developments in which the CSD Canteen Car Buying Process, 2022 updated wherein he/JCO is eligible for the said 1.2 Litre Engine car having ex-showroom price of less than ₹9.00 lakhs and that the entitlement of the complainant is baselessly and unnecessarily questioned. It has further been averred that despite issuance of the legal notice and sending of the further e-mails, no response was received till date from the Opposite Parties. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

4]                Before the Ld. District Commission, despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance, therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

5]                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. District Commission dismissed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

 

6]                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Complainant.

 

7]                We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8]                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9]                After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10]              It is the case of the Appellant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.  It has been submitted that the Ld. District Commission has filed to appreciate the evidence pointing out that the limit was not adhered in respect of similarly situated person who retired as CPO pay level 06 from the Indian Navy, the same rank as that of the Appellant.  It has been also submitted that the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate that the portal/system was faulty as there was no column indicating JCO (Level 6) accordingly, the Appellant ticked on JCO (pay level 7-9) because he retired as CPO from the Indian Navy which is a JCO rank. It has been argued that by not appreciating the aforesaid factual aspects, the Ld. District Commission hastily dismissed the Complaint without granting the Appellant the opportunity to present substantial evidence, thereby committed a grave error and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.    

 

11]              Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and therefore no case is made out against them in as much as based on the existing policy at that time, LS order was not issued to the Complainant being not in the entitled category.

12]              Per material available on record, the Appellant is an ex-serviceman retired from the Indian Navy on 31.08.2001 as CPO in the pay level 6. This fact is evident from the Pension Payment Order (PPO) annexed by the Appellant himself. Indisputably, the Appellant applied for a Hyundai i-20 Asta 1.2 Kappa (BS-VI) car through the online CSD portal.  The supply order was issued on 21.07.2022 by Depot Ambala, as per which the basic price of the vehicle was ₹6,75,733/-.  Now, the question arises whether the Appellant was entitled/eligible for the purchase of the said vehicle at the time of its booking.  Annexure R-4 is a review car policy letter dated 27.10.2020 which was in force at the time of generation of demand i.e. Jul 2022. Meticulous perusal of the same shows that the entitlement of all beneficiaries in the rank of OS/LS/PO/ CPO of Navy and equivalent in Army/Air Force (pay level 3A to 6) was purchase of four wheelers with CSD basic price limit of ₹6,00,000/- excluding taxes. The supply order issued by Ambala Depot in respect of the Appellant reflects the pay level filled in as level 7, which is not in commensurate with the level of pay for the purchase of four wheeler as per policy in vogue in Jul 2022. Based on the aforesaid policy, LS order was not issued to the Complainant being not in the entitled category. Thus, it is vouch safe to conclude that as per laid down policy dated 27.10.2020 for rank of CPO, the price limit for purchase of car was ₹6,00,000/- excluding taxes, therefore, the Appellant was not entitled/eligible for the purchase of the said vehicle at the time of its booking. The Respondents accordingly aptly advised the Appellant to submit an application for cancellation, refund and applying afresh in the correct pay level category as applicable at that time.

13]              Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that as per the latest entitlement policy issued on 30.11.2022, the entitlement has been enhanced for purchase of four wheelers with basic price limit of ₹10,00,000/- excluding taxes.  Thus, the Appellant had otherwise become entitled to purchase the car having basic price of ₹6,75,733/-.  We have gone through the said revised policy dated 30.11.2022, which superseded the earlier policy dated 27.10.2020 on the subject. The new policy came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2023, meaning thereby that it is prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect. Thus, the Appellant cannot take any benefit therefrom as at the relevant period when he had applied for the purchase of car, his purchase limit was to be governed by the extant policy at that time only and not the revised policy dated 30.11.2022 which came into operation prospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2023.  However, the Appellant in terms of the revised policy dated 30.11.2022, which entitles him for purchase of our wheeler with price limit of ₹10,00,000/- excluding taxes, now can purchase the subject vehicle by applying afresh, if advised.

14]              Learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the portal/system was faulty as there was no column indicating JCO (level 6). However, we do not find any merit in this argument for the sole reason that the generation of demand was online and done by the Appellant himself. At any rate, it was incumbent for the Appellant/ Complainant to contact the Respondents/ops for verification of the said alleged anomaly, which he did not verify. Moreover, the Ld. District Commission has categorically recorded a finding that the Appellant/Complainant has failed to prove on record that the system/portal was faulty and thus, he failed to prove his case qua the Respondents/Opposite Parties. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

15]              No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

16]              It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

17]              In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

18]              All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

19]              Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

20]              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

01.04.2024.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”