Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/471/2022

OSCAR BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULNAZ KAUR, FIELD OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Oscar Bansal, H.No.5780, Sector-38 West, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Sr. Sales Officer, Smt. Gulnaz Kaur, Sr. Sales Officer, Indian Oil Bhavan, Plot No.3A, Sector 19A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019.

… Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant did refill petrol transaction at CITCO LPG and Petrol Station, Sector 38, Chandigarh, on 25.01.2022 for Rs.3216/- via Amazon Pay UPI (Annexure A1). As per the Govt. guidelines, transactions done through online mode from 13.12.2016 are eligible for 0.75% cashback. Subsequently, complainant contacted Smt. Gulnaz Kaur, Sr. Sales Officer to enquire about the issue (Annexure A-2). Complainant explained to her the details and she asked him to share screen shots of the transactions via whatsapp and she assured that a resolution will be provided (Annexure A-3). The complainant still didn’t receive the cash back till 07.02.2022. Meanwhile on 10.02.2022 the complainant did another petrol refill transaction for Rs.3151/- via Paytm Wallet. Again when the complainant did not receive the 0.75% cash back for the transaction of Rs.3151/- on 10.02.22. Another petrol refill transaction was done by him on 29.03.2022 for Rs.3548/- and Rs.400/- on 13.04.2022 via Paytm Wallet, the cash back for which have not been credited till date (Annexure A-11). Hence, this present complaint.  
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.1 has no control over any transaction done through Paytm (One97 Communications Ltd.,) or Amazon Pay and it is not the responsibility of OP No.1 to refund any cash back to the complainant. It is the duty of Paytm/Amazon Pay to refund the cash back, if any, to its customers. However, one97 communications Ltd. (Paytm), Skymark One, Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Tower D, Plot No.H-10B, Sector 98, Noida and Amazon Pay India have not been impleaded as party-respondents in the present case. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply and stated that the petrol filled by the complainant, was filled at the petrol pumps of the OP No.2. It is submitted that no cash backs have to be approved or allotted by the OP No.2 and therefore, it has no role. Further it is clarified that all the Government guidelines/schemes regarding the online payment initiated by the concerned banks & mobile payment application are governed by their terms and conditions and no role for the failure to credit the cash backs is attributable to the OP No.2. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that he was supposed to get 0.75% cash back on few transactions of petrol refill done by him at CITCO LPG & Petrol Station, Sector 38, Chandigarh via Amazon Pay UPI and Paytm Wallet, for which he did not get cash back inspite of repeated correspondence with OP No.1 & 2.
7.     The stand of the OPs is that they do not have any control over any transactions done through Paytm (one 97 communications) or Amazon Pay and it is the duty of Paytm/Amazon pay to refund the cash back, if any, to its customers. It is observed that Paytm and Amazon pay India have not been impleaded as party-respondents who are the necessary party for just & fair adjudication of the matter. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any copy of any Govt. Guidelines/any other directions from any party, wherein there is a commitment regarding 0.75% of cash back refund, on the said transactions done by him. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and also not adducing any documentary evidence by way of any agreement/guidelines wherein, complainant was eligible for 0.75% cash back on the said transactions. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.