Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/400/2024

SAVINDER SINGH GILL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHHORGIA FILLING STATION - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/400/2024
Date of Institution	:	20/8/2024
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

1. Savinder Singh Gill S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh R/o # 47. Sector-10 A. Chandigarh-160011.

2. Damanpreet Kaur W/o Sh. Savinder Singh Gill R/o # 47, Sector-10 A. Chandigarh-160011.

...Complainants

Versus

 

1. Chhorgia Filling Station, Ground Floor, NH5, Nako, Kinnaur-172111 through its proprietor/manager.

2. Axis Bank, SCO No. 1. Sector 16 D. Chandigarh-160016 through its manager.

3. HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No. 149-150, sector-17 C. Chandigarh-160017 through its manager.

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant No.1 in person.
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 30.6.2024 the complainants were travelling from Kaza to Chandigarh with their family friends and stopped their car at the filling station of the OP No.1, for getting fuel filled  in their car. After getting the fuel filled in the car the complainant No.2  made payment of Rs.4,921/- to OP No.1  from her paytm account  which was successfully debited from her account. However, the staff of OP No.1 refused to acknowledge the payment as there was  signal issue with the payment machine of OP No.1. The copy of payment  proof is annexed as Annexure C-1. Thereafter the staff of OP No.1 asked the complainants to make payment again with the assurances that in case the payment is debited twice from the account of the complainants  then the first payment will be reversed  within 48-72 hours as the credit of the first payment has not been received in the account of OP No.1. On the insistence of the staff of OP No.1, the complainants made another payment through credit card  which was also successfully debited from their account and the copy of payment proof is annexed as Annexure C-2. After 72 hours when the payment was not reversed by OP No.1, the complainants contacted their bank regarding the issue of payment and their bank confirmed that payment has been successfully credited in the account of OP No.1 and  the copy of account statement is annexed as Annexure C-3.  After getting the confirmation from their bank the complainants contacted OP No.1  vide communication Annexure C-4  but nothing has been done by OP No.1 and it refused to reverse  one payment in the account of the complainants. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. OP  No.1 was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OPs were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 24.10.2024.
2. In order to prove their case, complainants tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant No.1 and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainants that  after getting the fuel filled in the car from the fuel station of the OP No.1 on 30.6.2024  and transferred an amount of Rs.4921/- twice  in the account of OP No.1 due to signal issue in the payment machine of OP No.1 and due to denial of  acknowledgement of first payment by the employee of OP No.1 made by complainant No.2 through paytm and despite of the fact that both the payments were successfully credited in the account of the OP No.1 it did not reverse back one payment despite assurances given by it, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that on 30.6.2024  an amount of Rs.4921.37 was debited from the account of the complainant No.2 and was credited in the account of OP No.1 which fact stands proved from the copy of statement of account Annexure C-3.  Perusal of Annexure C-2 further reveals that  on the same day i.e. on 30.6.2024 another amount of Rs.4921/-  was also credited in the account of the OP No.1 and both the transactions process numbers are different, showing that the payments  for the aforesaid amount was made twice in the account of the OP No.1. Perusal of Annexure C-4 further indicates that the complainant had sent legal notice to the OP No.1 and requested them to reverse the additional payment of Rs.4921/-  in the account of complainants and the OP No.1 had responded with message that after reaching pooh he will look into the matter.
   3. Thus, one thing is proved  on record from the foregoing discussion and in the light of the allegations made by the complainant coupled with documentary evidence as discussed above, that the amount of Rs.4921/- was transferred in the account of OP No.1 twice  but the OP No.1 has not reversed back the additional payment made by the complainants due to technical issue in the payment machine of OP No.1,  in the account of complainants and the said act of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service especially when the entire case set up by the complainants in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP No.1. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
   4. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned during the course of arguments the complainant vide his separate statement dated 24.10.2024 stated that the subject amount has been transferred in his account by the OP and he only presses for compensation. Hence, keeping in view the harassment suffered by the complainant due to the aforesaid act of OP No.1, it will be in the interest of justice if the OP No.1 is directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant. It is ordered accordingly.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 directed as under :-
   1. to pay lump sum amount of ₹2500/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost  of litigation;
5. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till realization.
6. Complaint qua OPs No.2&3 stands dismissed as there is no cause of action against them.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member