Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/51/2015

Sohan lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cheema Gas Service - Opp.Party(s)

Sh T.S Dhiman

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint No.51 of 2015

Date of institution: 25.05.2015

Date of decision : 08.04.2016

Sohan Lal son of Mohan Lal resident of Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. ……..

Complainant

Versus

1. Cheema Gas Service through its proprietor Amarjit Kaur Cheema, Main road Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. National Payments Co-operation of India, C-9, 8th floor, RBI Premises, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai.

3. State Bank of Patiala, ADB Branch Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Through its Manager in connection A/C No.65032120828 of Sohan Lal Arora, Mohalla Jarkhellan, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. …..

Opposite Parties Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act Quorum Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Smt. Veena Chahal, Member Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member Present : Sh. Tejinder Singh Dhiman, Adv. Cl. for the complainant Sh. Rajmat Singh, Adv. Cl. for OP No.1. Sh. Partap Parida, representative of OP No.2. None for OP No.3. ORDER By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member Complainant, Sohan Lal son of Mohan Lal resident of Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: 2. The complainant purchased 10 cylinders of LPG from OP No.1, who promised the complainant that the amount of subsidy will be credited in the bank account of the complainant. The complainant received subsidy amount of 3 cylinders but did not receive subsidy amount for remaining seven cylinders purchased during the period between 22.07.2013 to 26.02.2014. OP No.1 asked the complainant to submit copy of Adhar Card and Pass Book of bank account, which were submitted by the complainant to OP No.1. After completion of the papers and necessary formalities the complainant received subsidy amount of three cylinders but the further subsidy was stopped by the OPs. The complainant approached OP No.1 and demanded the remaining amount of subsidy but OP No.1 stated that it was the matter between the complainant and OP No.2. The complainant also served a legal notice upon OPs but the OP No.1 refused to accept the legal notice. OP No.2 gave reply to the said notice but denied the genuine demand of the complainant on one pretext or the other. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay the subsidy amount of seven cylinders and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and harassment and metal agony suffered by the complainant. 3. The complaint is contested by the OPs. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable against it as the matter in question relates with National Payment Corporation of India and the same is not maintainable for mis-joinder of necessary parties. As regards the facts of the complaint OP No.1 stated that the complainant purchased 10 gas cylinders of LPG from it and out of said cylinders subsidy amount of three cylinders has already been paid to the complainant by OP No.2 and subsidy amount for the remaining cylinders was sent by OP No.2 but the same failed as the Adhar Card Number was inoperative. The complainant was advised to confirm the said number from the bank. It is further stated that OP No.1 is earning only commission on sale of each cylinders and paying the price of each cylinders purchased from Indian Oil Corporation of India to Corporation of India in advance. OP No.1 has no concern or connection with the payment of subsidy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. In reply to complaint OP No.2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action against it to file the present complaint and the same is not maintainable; the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 within the meaning of clause(d) of sub Section(1) Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant has no locus standi to prefer the complaint against it and OP No.2 is not a necessary party to the present complaint. As regards to the fact of the complaint it stated that it does not make any payment to any customer of gas agency for LPG subsidy or otherwise. The question of direct benefit transfer of LPG subsidy it to be considered by Oil Marketing Companies/Government. It is for the Government/Oil Marketing Companies to instruct, after considering the claim of consumers, their sponsor banks by using electronic platform of OP No.2 to transfer the gas subsidy amount to the bank in which gas consumer receiving subsidy has account. OP No.2 only transmits the electronic instructions between the banks. It has no other role except transmitting the electronic information through its system to Banks which are member of its network. It is further stated that the complainant has not disclosed either his gas consumer number or the name of the Gas Supply Company, which is providing Gas Cylinders to complainant through OP No.1 or the bank account where gas subsidy was to be credited. It absence of the same it would not be possible for OP No.2 to ascertain or direct the complainant to approach a particular agency. There is no deficiency in service on its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. In reply to the complaint OP No.3 stated that only three times subsidy amount has been received and credited to the Saving Bank account No. 65032120828 of the complainant. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. information of statement Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2, application before Permanent Lok Adalat Ex. C-3, reply Ex. C-4, legal notice dated 28.04.2015 Ex. C-5, original postal receipts Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7, postal letter Ex. C-8, acknowledgment Ex. C-9, statement Ex. C-10, his affidavit Ex. C-11, attested copy of pass book Ex. C-12 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Kaur Cheema Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Girdhar G.M. Vice President of NPCI Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 failed to tender any documents despite several opportunities. Hence evidence of OP No.3 was closed by order. 7. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got supply of 10 gas cylinders, out of which he received subsidy of 3 gas cylinders but did not receive the subsidy of 7 gas cylinders. He requested the OPs time and again but to no avail. Finally a legal notice was also issued which OP No.1 refused to accept, OP No.2 replied the same. The complainant was receiving the subsidy through State Bank of Patiala. The print out taken from the site of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(OMC) (Ex. C-1 and C-2) clearly shows that subsidy has been given for 3 gas cylinders and has not been given for 7 gas cylinders. It is mentioned "Aadhar number is inactive, failed". Inspite of repeated requests to OPs, they have not redressed his grievance. The counsel pleaded for the acceptance of his complaint and requested for payment of subsidy and also penalizing the OPs for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment. 8. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that OP No.1 has no role regarding the payment of subsidy to the consumers. As a dealer, cylinders are received from the company against payment and are supplied to the customers. Subsidy is to be paid by the Indian Oil Corporation( OMC) through the banks and pleaded for dismissal of complaint against it. 9. OP No.2 was represented by Mr. Partap Parida, Assistant Manager. OP No.2 in their written version and affidavit stated that they are retail electronic payment service provider and provides electronic infrastructure for processing, transmitting, linking and clearing of payment instructions. They have no financial obligation of any kind whatsoever and LPG gas subsidy is not payable by them and pleaded for dismissal of complaint against them. 10. OP No.3 submitted a brief reply, wherein they admitted that subsidy of only 3 gas cylinders has been paid. Thereafter OP No.3 or his representative or any counsel on his behalf neither appeared for tendering evidence nor during the arguments. 11 After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the plea of Ld. counsel for the complainant. We, therefore, accept the complaint only against OP No.3 and dismiss against OPs No. 1 & 2. OP No.3 took no step to redress the grievance of the complainant, even during the pendency of the complaint before this Forum. It was in his knowledge that Aadhar number has failed so the amount was not being credited in the account of the complainant & did not inform the complainant about invalidity of Aadhar number. Hence, OP No.3 is directed to credit the subsidy amount of 7 gas cylinders in the bank account of the complainant and also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousands only) for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. After that this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till its realization. 12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 01.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Pronounced Dated: 08.04.2016 (A.P.S.Rajput) President (Veena Chahal) Member (A.B.Aggarwal) Member