Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 vide Con.No.37284 on 26.06.2013.  The Aadhar card of the complainant is linked with S.B.I, Adoor Branch.  According to the complainant, he is booking gas cylinder every month and taking the delivery of it but the opposite parties are failed to credit subsidy of the gas cylinder in favour of the complainant even after the linking of the bank account.  The complainant informed the non-transfer of subsidy to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party but his grievances has not been redressed.  It is again contended that there is an amount of Rs.1,674/- was credited in his account as the subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 28.02.2014, 01.03.2014, 24.12.2014 and 23.03.2015.  It is again contended that though he availed gas cylinder for every month the opposite party 1 and 2 failed to credit the subsidy amount in his bank account.  It is also complained that usually 2^nd opposite party the distributor of 1^st opposite party not issuing cash bill at the time of effecting delivery of the cylinder.  He again contended that the opposite parties has to pay an amount of Rs.7,656/- as subsidy from 26.06.2013 and only Rs.1,674/- was credited in his account as subsidy and a balance of Rs.6,000/- is still due to opposite parties as balance of subsidy.  Hence complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to get arrear of the subsidy with interest, compensation etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite party 1 and 2 for their appearance.  Opposite party 1 and 2 filed their version separately.  After the filing of the versions the complainant filed an I.A.No.119/15 for impleading National Payments Corporation of India as additional opposite party 3 in this case.  This Forum allowed this I.A.119/15 and impleaded the National Payments Corporation of India as the addl. opposite party 3 in this case.  Addl. opposite party 3 appeared before the Forum and they also filed their version.

                   4. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:  According to the 1^st opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that the scheme of subsidy transfer in bank linking Aadhar was introduced in Pathanamthitta with effect from 01.06.2013 and a grace period was also there which was ended on 31.08.2013.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant linked his Aadhar on 08.05.2013 and 2^nd opposite party has updated that linking.  The customers who linked their Aadhar with the concerned bank are only eligible for the cylinder subsidy from 01.09.2013.  It is stated that the complainant’s Aadhar linking with the bank is verified and accepted only on 06.11.2013 though it is linked on 08.05.2013.  It is submitted that on 25.04.2013 to 12.05.2015 the complainant availed only 8 cylinders and the cylinder availed on 09.11.2013 is the only cylinder which the complainant received as a non-subsidy cylinder (DNS – Domestic Non-subsidy Cylinder).  According to this 1^st opposite party except the cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013 the complainant received subsidy from the concerned.  Hence 1^st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

                   5. The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  According to 2^nd opposite party, the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that the persons who linked their Aadhar with the bank concerned are eligible for gas subsidy from 01.09.2013 onwards.  It is also contended that the complainant changed into this subsidy scheme only on 27.02.2014 hence the complainant is not eligible for any subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013.  According to 2^nd opposite party he has no right to take any decision on subsidy matter and these matters are the policy matters of Govt. of India.  Hence 2^nd opposite party prays for dismissing the complaint with cost.

                   6. The 3^rd opposite party also filed their version as follows:  According to this addl. 3^rd opposite party this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that this contesting opposite party is not at all a necessary party to these proceedings and they pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer of this addl. 3^rd opposite party and as per the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 this complaint has to be dismissed.  It is also contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and this opposite party was no legal obligation to make any payment of money to the complainant as LPG subsidy or otherwise either under law or any contract.

                   7. Apart from the above stated preliminary objection on merit also this contesting opposite party pleaded as follows:  According to this opposite party, he has no knowledge with regard to the non-payment of subsidy amount alleged by the complainant.  It is also stated that the non-payment of LPG subsidy is related to 1^st opposite party alone.  It is again stated that it is the Govt./Oil Marketing Companies to instruct, after considering the claim of consumers, from Sponsor Banks by using electronic platform of NPCI to transfer the gas subsidy amount to the bank with which gas consumer receiving subsidy has maintained an account.  This opposite party only transmits the electronic instructions between the banks.  On the basis of the above contention, this opposite party also prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to these proceedings.

          8. When we peruse the complaint, the version and the records of both sides we frame the following issues:

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

         9. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and the evidence adduced by 2^nd opposite party as DW1.  The complainant he who examined as PW1 and through him Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.  At the time of cross-examination through PW1 Ext.B1 and B2 (subject to proof) were also marked.  The complainant as PW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.  When we examine the chief affidavit of PW1, we can see that the content of the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  It is deposed that he is the consumer of opposite parties and on 26.06.2013 his Aadhar was linked with SBI Branch, Adoor.  It is also deposed that after the linking of the Aadhar the opposite parties failed to remit subsidy amount in his bank account in time and the act of the opposite parties are clearly a deficiency of service.  In order to substantiate his case he produced and marked Ext.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the copy of Customer Card.  Ext.A2 is the copy of Bank Statement.  Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint dated 28.03.2015 issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.  It is further deposed that even though he availed gas cylinder for 10 times opposite parties credited subsidy only for 4 times in his bank account.  On the other side, 2^nd opposite party’s power of attorney holder filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and through him Ext.B1 to B3 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the copy of consumer information.  Ext.B2 is the cash memo (delivery receipt 8 Nos.) (subject to proof).  Ext.B3 is the power of attorney executed by the 2^nd complainant.  DW1 deposed in chief that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party 2 vide Consumer No.37284 dated 20.04.2013.  On 08.05.2013 2^nd opposite party updated the linking of Aadhar of complainant with SBI, Adoor Branch and the same is verified and accepted only on 06.11.2013.  It is admitted that even though a gas cylinder is delivered on 09.11.2013 no subsidy was granted to that cylinder.  It is also deposed that the complainant, PW1 received an amount of Rs.1,239/- as bank subsidy from the opposite parties.  It is deposed that on 05.11.2013 the complainant’s Aadhar was not linked with the bank concerned that is why subsidy has not been allotted to the complainant. The counsels concerned has cross-examined PW1 and DW1 respectively in this case.  After the closure of evidence, we heard the complainant.  Though sufficient time has been given to the opposite parties they did not turn up for hearing.

          10. Point No.1:-  The case of the complainant is the failure of the opposite party with regard to the transfer of gas cylinder subsidy in favour of the complainant’s bank account.  Opposite party 1 to 3 contended that the case is not maintainable before the Forum and addl. 3^rd opposite party vehemently stated that addl. 3^rd opposite party is not a service provider of the complainant.  Anyway, we look into the subject matter of this case and the available evidence before us, we can easily come to a conclusion to the effect that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2.  The complainant remitting the price of the gas cylinder to 2^nd opposite party and as per the present situation the complainant is eligible to get gas subsidy from the opposite party 1 and 2.  Hence it is seen that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party 1 and 2 and the case is maintainable before this Forum.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

          11. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The main question to be considered in this case is whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are promptly paid the subsidy of the gas cylinder to the complainant within the time schedule.  The complainant is deposed that only 4 times he received subsidy from the opposite party and the remaining gas cylinders subsidy is in due or outstanding.  In order to ascertain the truth in this aspect we have to look into the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case.  In chief he deposed, “Rm³ KmÀlnI Bh-iy-¯n-te-¡mbn knen-­À _p¡p sNbvXv Kymkv FSp-¯n-«p-ÅXpw F¶m B[mÀ en¦v sNbvX-Xn\ptijw k_vknUn XpI bYm-k-abw F\nbv¡v _m¦v A¡u­n e`n-¨n-«n-Ãm-¯-Xp-am-Wv.  IqSmsX Kymkv knen-­À FSp-¡p-t¼mÄ ]e-{]m-hiyw Bh-iy-s¸-«n«pw _nÃv \ÂIp-Itbm sNbvXn-«nÔ.  In the 4<sup>th</sup> Para of the chief affidavit, he again ascertained the failure of allotment of subsidy for the 6 cylinders.  When we examine the cross-examination of PW1 it reveals, “F\nbv¡v subsidy e`n-¡m³ D­v F¶v IrXy-ambn Adn-bnÔ.  Again he adds, “26.06.2013 \ptijw 17.08.2013, 09.11.2013, 22.02.2014, 23.07.2014, 10.10.2014, 22.12.2014, 18.03.2015 F¶o dateþ cylinder Rm³ FSp-¯p.  Ext.A2 {]Imcw subsidy In«nb Xob-Xn-IÄ hyà-amWv”.  Again he answered, “\n§-fpsS consumer information BWtÃm CXv? (Q) AsX. (A).  It is marked as Ext.B1.  Cu tcJ-{]-Imcw ]cmXn \ÂInb XobXn hsc F{X cylinder FSp-¯p-sh¶v Adnbmw”.  When we look into the answers in cross-examination, PW1 admitted Ext.B1 document as an authorised record to show that how many numbers of cylinders were delivered to the complainant for the subsidy matter.  As per Ext.B1, it is clear that the Aadhar updated with OMC/INDANE.CO.IN on 08.05.2013 and the verification is accepted only on 06.11.2013.  As per Ext.B1 Page No.3 the complainant received a cylinder on 09.11.2013 which was booked on 05.11.2013 with a cash memo of 3000064947 for an amount of Rs.1,004/-.  In cross he answered, “Ext.B1 {]Imcw Domestic Non-subsidy Cylinder e`n-¡m-Xn-cp-¶Xv 9 \hw-_À 2013 amkw FSp¯ cylinderþ\v am{X-amtWm F¶v F\n-bv¡-dn-bn-Ã. Ext.B1 {]Imcw \n§Ä¡v e`n¨ 4 Cylinder Domestic Subsidy Cylinder BWv F¶pw 2 cylinder DSC DBTL ap-tJ\ bankþ subsidy e`n-¨p-sh¶pw ]d-bp-¶Xv F\n-¡-dn-bnÔ.  In the light of the answers in the cross-examination, it can be easily revealed that the complainant has no definite idea with regard to the non-subsidy cylinders and it also reveals that the complainant failed to adduce any specific evidence with regard to the number, date of the details of non-delivery cylinders.  It is also to be seen that the answers of PW1 with regard to specific question related to the number of subsidy cylinders PW1 is evading to give specific answers.  At this juncture, we have to rely the evidence adduced by 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party in this case.  As we discussed earlier, as per Ext.B1 the Aadhar of the complainant is updated with 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party on 08.05.2013 and it is verified and accepted on 06.11.2013.  The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party has a clear case to the effect that from 25.04.2013 to 12.05.2015 PW1 received 8 cylinders and out of these 8 cylinders, 4 cylinders are delivered excluding the subsidy amount and 3 cylinders delivered and the subsidy of the said 3 cylinders were transferred through bank.  It is pertinent to see that the cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013 which was booked on 05.11.2013 was delivered to PW1 for Rs.1,004/-.  It is clear that 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has not received any subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013.  As per Ext.B1, as we discussed earlier, it is a cogent evidence in favour of the complainant that the Aadhar of the complainant was updated on 08.05.2013 and the same was verified and accepted on 06.11.2013.  It is crystal clear that the cylinder in question was delivered on 09.11.2013.  It can be seen from Page No.3 of Ext.B1.  The complainant is every right to get subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013.  Anyway, the denial of the subsidy for the said cylinder towards PW1 is a deficiency in service on the part or 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  The reason for non-payment of subsidy stated by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party through the version is not justifiable.  The time for changing the system was shown as a reason for non-payment of the subsidy.  This is a flimsy ground to deny the subsidy right of the complainant in this case.  Even if, it is assumed that non-payment of the subsidy was the reason stated by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party as stated above, what prevented 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party to allot the subsidy to the complainant in due course?  In cross-examination DW1 answered, “B[mÀ en¦v sN¿p-¶-Xn\v H¸w Xs¶ customerþ\v KYC Form sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p.  KYC-þ-bn customer-sS FÃm hnh-chpw D­m-hpw.  R§Ä customer-\v subsidy e`n-¨pthm F¶v verify sN¿m-dp­v”.  So it can be easily inferred that if a customer has not received subsidy he can very well detected it from their own document.  All these are clear deficiency on the side of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in this case.  It is also come out in evidence that the dealer 2^nd opposite party normally not issuing the cash bill to their customers.  The non-issuance of cash bill at the time of delivery is a clear deficiency on the side of 2^nd opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is a dealer of 1^st opposite party and it also see that 1^st opposite party is a Govt. of India Public Undertaking Company.  The society as a whole expects more, valid and reputed service from this public undertaking agencies.  Considering these aspects, we find that the complaint can be partly allowable.  Though the complainant is requested to allow huge compensation, cost etc. along with the subsidy amount, considering the nature and circumstances of this case that request cannot be accepted.  It is to see that on technical ground opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to credit subsidy in the name of the complainant’s bank account.  It is true that addl. opposite party 3 filed version but did not participated in the trial or adduced any evidence in their favour.  When we look into the version of addl. opposite party 3, it is clear that this addl. opposite party 3 is only transmits electronic instructions between the banks and this addl. opposite party 3 has no other role except transmitting electronic information through its system to banks which are members of the addl. 3^rd opposite party’s net work.  The specific stand taken by addl. 3^rd opposite party in this aspect has not been challenged by the complainant or the contesting 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party.  Hence we find that 3^rd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant in this case, so that addl. 3^rd opposite party has to be exonerated from this case.  As we discussed earlier, 1^st opposite party is the producer or manufacturer of the gas cylinder and 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of 1^st opposite party.  Hence opposite party 1 and 2 are equally and severally liable to the complainant in this case.

          12. In the result, we pass the following orders:

          (1) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the subsidy  

              amount of the gas cylinder delivered on 09.11.2013 within 

              30 days of the receipt of this order, if the opposite parties  

              failed to pay or credit the amount in complainant’s favour,  

              opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay an amount of  

               Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as the fine of the  

               non-payment within the stipulated time with 10% interest 

               from the date of order onwards.

        (2) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a cost of  

             Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant  

             within 30 days of receipt of this order.  If opposite parties 1  

             and 2 failed to comply the above direction within the specific  

             period, the opposite parties are liable to pay an interest of 

             10% for the above amount from the date of filing of this case 

             onwards, i.e. 12.05.2015.

                  (3) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to issue proper 

                      delivery receipt to the complainant hereafter without fail. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of August, 2016.                                                        

        (Sd/-)

                                                    P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Binoy Samuel

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of Customer Card. 

A2 :  Copy of Bank Statement. 

A3 :  Copy of complaint dated 28.03.2015 issued by the complainant to

        1^st opposite party.   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :Ajitha V

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

B1 :  Copy of consumer information. 

B2 :  Cash memo (delivery receipt 8 Nos.) (subject to proof). 

B3 :  Power of attorney executed by the 2^nd complainant.   

                                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Binoy Samuel, Mamvilayil House, Thazhathuvadakku. P.O.,

                    Enathu, Kollam.

               (2) General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation,

           Panampilly Nagar, Kochi.

      (3) Poornima Gas Agency, Parakkodu. P.O., Adoor – 691 554.

               (4)  National Payment Corporation of India, 8^th Level,

                     VBC Solitaire, 47 and 49 Bazullah Road, T. Nagar,

                     Chennai – 600 017.

               (5)  The Stock File.