Orissa

Cuttak

CC/84/2020

Smt Sujata Sathpathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cuttack Indane Gas - Opp.Party(s)

P Das & associates

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.84/2020

Smt. Sujata Sathpathy,

C/O:Abhay Kumar Satpathy,

Town Hall Road,P.O:Telenga Bazar,

P.S:Purighat,Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                     ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Cuttack Indane Gas,Mohantypada,

Cuttack-753001,Odisha,SAP No.204.314.

 

2.       The Manager,Chair Person,

M/s. Veer Sachi Indane Gas Agency,

ISA LN HIG Colony,Neeladri Vihar,

Chandrasekharpur,Bhubanessar,

Odisha-751021....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.10.2020

Date of Order:  27.06.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. P.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1.                   Mr. Bimbisar Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2.  :                None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                

            The case of the complainant in short is that she is a bonafide consumer of Indane Gas under Prime Minister Ujjwla Yojana for using the same in domestic purposes.  She received a gas cylinder from the O.Ps on 13.3.19 but till date, no subsidy amount has been credited to her bank account.  It is her further case that there is provision for providing three  free gas cylinders under Prime Minister Ujjwal Yojana but she received only the cost of one cylinder.  As the O.Ps did not credit the subsidy amount of the rest of two cylinders, she served legal notice upon them but the O.Ps had not listened.  Hence she has filed the present case praying for a direction to the O.Ps to pay the subsidy amount of the two gas cylinders to her as well as she has claimed compensation amount of Rs.3000/- towards harassment to her and her litigation expenses.

2.         The O.P No.1 has appeared and filed his written version.  It is stated by him that the case is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  It is further stated that Pradhan Mantri Ujjwal Yojana(PMUY) was introduced in the year 2016 to enable the women of BPL families to lead a healthy life making them free from cooking in open fire in the kitchen.  As per the scheme, the OMCs will transfer an advance to the PMUY customer’s bank account for amount equal to the RSP of one 14.2 kg refill and first advance will be transferred from 3^rd April,2020 onwards to the beneficiary’s account.  In clause-3 of the scheme it is stated that after receiving confirmation from the bank that advance has been credited to the customer’s account, an SMS will be sent to the customer’s registered mobile number that she may proceed to book and avail the Free LPG cylinder. As per clause-6 of the scheme, customer will have to pay the RSP amount for taking refill delivery.  Clause-7(f) reveals, refill taken by the customers from 1^st April,2020 will be counted in the scheme. Clause-7(g) of the scheme provides that during the scheme period, three refills of 14.2kg will be provided to the customer, with a maximum of 1 free 14.2kg Cylinder in a month.  Full RSP of thee free cylinders will be transferred to the customers in advance, so no separate subsidy will be triggered for them.  However, if the customer’s requirement is of more cylinders in the same calendar month, as the free cylinder, she will have to pay full RSP upfront and subsidy will be triggered (or adjusted/deferred with loan, if applicable) normally.  However, it is further stated that the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of Covid-19, which is to be borne by the OMC/ Govt. of India and the Gas Agency has no rule to play in this regard.  But in the present case the complainant has made neither the Govt. of India a party nor the OMC as a party to the case.  Hence, the case suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable against him.  The complainant had availed PMUY on loan basis, where subsidy amount are being adjusted against her loan account.  Hence, it is prayed by the O.P No.1 for dismissal of the complaint case against him.

3.         O.P No.2 has neither appeared nor has filed any written version.  Hence he was set exparte.

            The complainant as well as O.P No.2 have filed their respective documents in support of their stands.

4.         Keeping in mind the averments of either sides, this Commission feels it proper to decide the following points in this case.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P.Act?

            ii.         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps have adopted any unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits as claimed?

Point  No.1 & 2.

            For the sake of convenience points no.1 & 2 are taken up together first for consideration.

            The crux of the dispute in this case is the “subsidy amount”, which the complainant claims as she could not avail the same.  In this regard the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Himachal Weavers Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. Ltd. & Ors reportred in III(1993)  CPJ held that “definition of the consumer as provided under the C.P.Act does not indicate that ‘subsidy’ comes under the purview of definition of consumer because there is no element of service being rendered by the appellant to the respondent and within the definition of service.  Subsidy being given by the Govt. is a free financial assistance for which no charges or fees or consideration is being  paid by the beneficiary of the ‘subsidy’”.  Thus, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of consumer and she has no cause of action to file this case.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in the negative.

 

Point No.3 & 4.

            When the complainant is not a consumer under the O.Ps as per the definition of the consumer and no service is hired by her, there is no deficiency in service and the O.Ps have not adopted any unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, these points are answered.

Point No.5.

            From the above discussions, it is made out that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2 but as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of June,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                     Member.

 

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President