Orissa

Cuttak

CC/228/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Vishal Filling Station - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Dec 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.228/2023

            Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

           S/o: Simanchal Rath,Plot No.3C/876,Sector-10,

            CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                                     ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

Manager,vishal Filling Stati0n,

(Indian Oil Corporation),Sector-1,

Inside Aswini HospitalCuttack-2,

                    District:Cuttack.                                                                ...Opp Party

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    10.07.2023

Date of Order:  22.12.2023

 

For the complainant:              Self.

                For the O.P.                :                Sonita Biswas,Adv. & Associates.

            Sri Debasish Nayak,President

          The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that having taken fuel(petrol) of 4.48 litre in his Scooty bearing Red. No.OD-05V-3820 from the O.P the complainant had paid the price thereof amounting to Rs.464/- through online mobile banking vide transaction ID No.318616265053 on 5.7.2023 at 16:57:06 hrs.  The said money was debited from the Central Bank of India account of the complainant bearing no.3304790344 but on the plea of failure in transaction, the O.P had again obtained the same amount immediately from the complainant through the same procedure of online transaction.  Thus, the complainant had paid twice to the O.P on 5.7.23 at the same time and a total amount of Rs.928/- was paid instead of paying Rs.464/-.  When the complainant could know that by obtaining twice the same amount in a single occasion on 5.7.23, the O.P had cheated him, he had requested for refund of half of the amount sine because he was only liable to pay Rs.464/- and not Rs.928/-.  He had lodged complaint through Customer Care also and had drawn the attention of the Manager of the O.P in this regard and ultimately when no fruitful result yielded, he has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.P in order to refund the amount of Rs.928/- as paid by him together with an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and has further prayed for the cost of his litigation from the O.P.  The complainant has also prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper. 

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed written version wherein he has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  According to the O.P, the complainant had visited the filling station of the O.P on 5.7.2023 for obtaining fuel (petrol) and since because there was failure in the online transaction, the complainant was asked to pay the amount of petrol again.  The O.P has mentioned in his written version that the “PayTM” transaction for a single day is deposited in the bank of the company directly and there is no scope of the O.P to check the transaction details unless the settlement of the machine is done.  As per the guideline of the “PayTM” when the money debited but the slip do not generate, the money that which has been debited is credited back to the account of the depositor within a span of 7 to 10 days.  Accordingly, the amount wrongly credited by the complainant was refunded to his account on 11.7.2023.  It is thus, the prayer of the O.P to dismiss the complaint petition it being not maintainable.

          The O.P has also filed copies of several documents in order to establish his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issues no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, that of the written version, written notes of submissions as filed from either sides as well as the documents as filed by either sides, it is noticed that infact the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.463.86 towards fuelling his two-wheeler bearing Regd. No.OD-05V-3820.  But since because the machine reflected about the failure of the said transaction, the complainant was asked to pay the amount of the petrol as consumed by him in his Scooty for the subsequent time. When the complainant raised objection/protested, the amount was credited back to the bank account of the complainant on 11.7.2023 at 5.35 p.m.  Be that as it may, admittedly the complainant after fuelling his scooty had paid through online banking process the amount of Rs.463.86p to the O.P account.  When he was told that the transaction has failed and was thus asked to deposit the cost of the petrol again, he had complied the same by paying for the subsequent time but for the single consumption of petrol.  When he could know that he was cheated, he had protested and had drawn the attention of the O.P and has also raised his protest through the Customer Care.  When he could not get a positive response, he had to file this case on 6.7.2023.  As per Annexure-3, the wrongly collected amount of Rs.464/- from the complainant was credited back to his bank account on 11.7.2023 at 5.35 p.m. which goes to show that after filing of the case, the O.P had shown promptitude in returning the excess amount of money that which was taken from the complainant.  While advancing argument before this Commission, the O.P has urged that since when the money has been credited back to the account of the complainant, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in their service.  The O.P has taken the plea of POS machine of the “PayTM” which has no system of indicating the double transaction for a single fuelling and when the same was detected subsequently, the amount was credited back to the bank account of the complainant. The use of the “PayTM” and provisions about the POS is not as per the choice of the complainant rather, it is the O.P who had chosen to get payment from the intending consumers either through cash or through “PayTM” online transaction.  The complainant had obeyed to such but had paid twice.  The plea of the O.P that since because there was no immediate detection system of double payment and since because they had already credited the extra amount of money as paid by the complainant to his bank account, the case is not maintainable.  But one thing for sure here in this case is that the complainant without any fault of him had suffered and was under tremendous mental turpitude when without any fault he was to pay twice and could not get back the unnecessary amount that which the O.P had collected from him and was thus brooding for being cheated.  Thus, it can never be said here that there was no deficiency in service as submitted by the O.P.  Accordingly, this issue tilts in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  When the complainant in the meanwhile had received the excess amount of money that which he had paid, it would be proper to direct the O.P in order to provide compensation to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of December,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                   President

 

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member