Haryana

Ambala

CC/193/2021

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director of Agriculture & Welfare - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     193 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     01.07.2021

                                                          Date of decision    :     14.10.2022.

Jagtar Singh S/O Ajmer Singh, Resident of Village- Kaula Jandli, PO- Model Town, Tehsil-Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Director of Agriculture & Welfare of KISHAN Department, Sector-21, Panchkula (Haryana),(Through its Director)
2. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch -Jandli Ambala City, Distt-Ambala-134003(Through its Branch Manager).
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala (Haryana) (Through its Director).

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                     Shri Shekhar Kumar, Authorized Representative of OPs No.1 & 3.

                   OP No.2 already ex parte.                 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

                   (a) To credit the amount of Rs.14000/- in the account of the   complainant from 24-02-2019 alongwith 18% interest under PFMS     Yojna.

(b) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- aslitigation charges.

OR

Grant any other relief, which the Commission deems fit, in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a farmer and doing Agriculture since 58 years. As per PFMS Scheme Registration Status No-HR152197780 the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.2000/- through OP No.2 in Bank Account No-29070100002511. He found that the said amount is not being received in his account. The complainant went to OP No.2 and informed its Manager that the said amount of Rs.2000/- is not being received/credited in his account, since 24.02.2019. After checking the record of the OP No.2,  it was found that due to clerical error of Bank, the said amount is being credited in wrong account bearing No.-24070100002511 instead of Account No-29070100002511. It was assured by OP No.2 that the said amount will be paid soon to the complainant, but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts;  the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties etc. It has been stated that OPs No.1 and 3 are not at fault. The complainant himself mentioned in para no. 5 of the complaint that OP No.2 admitted that due to clerical mistake the said amount has been credited in the wrong account of other farmer i.e. in Account no. 24070100002511. He also mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint that OP No.2 assured him that it will refund the said amount in his account. OPs No.1 and 3 are regularly paying PM-KISAN under PFMS amount to the complainant @ Rs.2000/- per four monthly periods since 24.02.2019. The complainant approached OPs No.1 and 3 on 08.06.2021 and when he informed regarding the above fact, they immediately took action and amended the account number of the complainant on the same day. The previous amount which was credited in the wrong account of other farmer can only be recovered/adjusted by OP No.2. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and  3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2021.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, Authorized Representative for OPs No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala/OPs No.1 and 3, and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3.
6.           We have heard the complainant and Authorized Representative for the OPs No.1 and 3 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Complainant in person submitted that since the OPs were at fault in sending his amount in the wrong account, as such, they are liable to  pay the said amount to the complainant, yet, by not doing so by the OPs, it amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. 
8.           On the contrary, the Authorized Representative for OPs 1 and 3 submitted that it was OP No.2 which can get refund of the amount already paid to some other person i.e. in the wrong account referred to above and OPs No.1 and 3 have no role in the same. He further submitted that the moment the complainant brought the fact regarding transfer of amount in wrong account referred to above, the same was corrected by OPs No.1 and 3. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not? As per Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “Consumer” means any person who:

(i)  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)  hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

10.           It may be stated here that as per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, sale consideration is regarded necessary for hiring or availing of services. In our considered opinion, for the services provided without charging anything in return, the person availing the services is not a consumer under the Act, 2019. In the present case, the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence to prove that he hired the services of the OPs on making sale consideration to them. Whereas, on the other hand, admittedly, the complainant was receiving the said amount of Rs.2,000/- under PM Kisan Samman Nidhi Scheme, through OPs No.1 and 3, which amount was to be deposited by them in the account maintained by him with OP No.2.
11.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that this complaint is not maintainable, before this Commission, as the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as envisaged in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost, being not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty to avail any other legal remedy available to him under law. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

        

Announced on: 14.10.2022.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President