Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 205
Instituted on : 26.04.2019
Decided on : 01.08.2023
Smt. Azad Kaur @ Azado aged-70 yrs. W/o Sh. Hawa Singh, resident of Village-Sunderpur, Tehsil & District-Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Manu Gas service, Mata Darwaja, Jind Road, Rohtak(through its Manager/Authorized Person).
- Branch Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank, BO-Mata Darwaja, Rohtak.(Through its Manager/Authorized Person).
- Branch Manager, State Bank of India, BO Ismaila-9B, District Rohtak.(Through its Manager/Authorized Person).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Smt. Parvesh Rani, AR of complainant in person.
Sh. Manoj Khatri, opposite party No. 1 in person.
Sh. R.N.Saini, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
Smt. Loveleen N. Gupta, Adv. for opposite party no. 3 and 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she is having a gas connection in her name which was issued by opposite party no. 1 vide consumer no. A-14734, SV No.4062682024 dated 28.02.2011. To get the subsidy, she linked her Aadhar Card No. 6042-9927-4849 with her saving A/c No. 807701 00024557 being maintained by opposite party no. 2. She never got credited the subsidy amount in her saving account from the very beginning till date. The complainant visited to the office of opposite parties many times regarding his complaint of not getting the subsidy but all in vain. The officials of the opposite party disclosed the fact that her subsidy amount is being credited in the account of Smt. Kusumlata w/o Radhe Shyam, R/o VPO Ismaila, Tehsil-Sampla, District Rohtak. The complainant also met with the official of the all the opposite parties but all of them refused to do anything. She also contacted the said Kusumlata w/o Radhe Shyam telephonically but she frankly refused to hand over the subsidy amount credited in her account illegally. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to immediately rectify the error committed by them and credit the whole subsidy amount as per entitlement from the very beginning till date in the saving bank account of complainant, also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation amount and to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the Aadhar card of the complainant is correctly recorded in their system but the gas subsidy is being credited in the SBI account of Smt. Kusumlata as the SBI Bank has attached the Aadhar Card of complainant with the account of Smt. Kusumlata. Whole gas subsidy has been transferred from BPL as per Aadhar Card. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account no. 80770100024557 with their Branch and the said account is also seeded with Aadhar card bearing No. 604299274849. They do not credit the amount of subsidy in the account at B.O. Level but received the amount of subsidy through NEFT directly crediting the account of the beneficiary. They only disburse the amount of subsidy after receiving the amount from the concerned Government Department. It is wrong and denied that official of the opposite party disclosed that her subsidy amount is being credited in account of Smt. Kusum Lata. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong & denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with a direction to complainant to pay litigation expenses amounting to Rs.22,000/- and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of dragging the answering opposite party into unnecessary litigation. Opposite party No. 3 in their reply has submitted that they have no concern with the subsidy. The complainant is not having any account with the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that Smt. Kusum Lata is having account with the answering opposite party and amount of subsidy is being received in the said account. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong & denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with a direction to complainant to pay litigation expenses amounting to Rs.22,000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of dragging the answering opposite party into unnecessary litigation.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 07.11.2019. Opposite party No. 1 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit in his evidence, tendered document Ex. R1/1 and closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2020. Opposite party No.1 also filed documents ‘Annexure –JN-A’ to ‘Annexure JN-D’. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, document Ex. R-1 and closed his evidence on dated 23.02.2021. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 3 in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-3/A, document Ex. R3/1 and closed his evidence on 10.01.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The complainant did not receive the subsidy amount in his saving account maintained in the Haryana Gramin bank vide account no.80770100024557. She complained many times to the respondent to this effect. The reply has been filed by all the respondents. The respodnentno.2 in his reply has submitted that the bank did not receive any subsidy to be credited in the account of complainant. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the subsidy regarding the gas connection has been released by the department in the bank account of the customers of Gas connection. The respondent no.1 further submitted that in the record of respondent no.1 Aadhar no. of consumer is mentioned as 604299274849 and the same is correct as per record. As per our record this Aadhar Card is linked with the bank account of one Smt. Kusumlata of SBI Bank and the subsidy of Smt. Azad Kaur has been credited in the account of Smt. Kusum Lalta having account number in SBI Bank. As per their record the whole subsidy has been transferred in the account of customer linked with their Aadhar Card. The Commission directed the respondent no.1 to produce the record of subsidy. Respondent no.1 placed on record some documents on dated 27.07.2022 which are marked as ‘Annexure JNA’ to ‘Annexure JN-D’ by this Commission. On the other hand respondent no.3 also filed an account statement alongwith the affidavit before this Commission. We have minutely perused the documents ‘Annexure JNA’ to ‘Annexure JND’ and the account statement of Smt.Kusumlata wife of Radhey Shyam R/o VPO Ismaila, Tehsil Sampla, District, Rohtak having account no.34792988415 in State Bank of India, Ismila. As per respondent no.1 an amount of Rs.645.91/- has been credited in the account of Smt.Azad Kaur upto 08.03.2016. Thereafter the subsidy of consumer no.A14734, SV No.4062682024 dated 28.02.2011 has been credited in the account of Mrs. Kusumlata from 06.09.2016 to 26.03.2020. As per our opinion the subsidy of Smt. Azad Kaur has been transferred in the account of Smt. Kusum Lata having account in SBI Ismaila because the Aadhar Card of Smt. Azad Kaur has been wrongly attached by the SBI Bank Ismaila with the account of Ms. Kusumlata wife of Radhe Shyam R/o Ismaila, Rohtak. This fact has been proved from the perusal of document Annexure JND(having 2 pages) and perusal of account statement placed on record by the respondent no.3 as Annexure R3/1. The subsidy mentioned in document ‘Annexure-JND’ dated 04.05.2017 of Rs.191.23 and dated 04.10.2017 having Rs.161.67/- has been credited in the account of Smt. Kusum Lata on dated 08.05.2017 and 17.10.2017 respectively. The perusal of document Ex.RW3/1 itself shows that the subsidy has been wrongly credited in the account of Smt. Kusum Lata and she was not entitled for the same. Smt. Kusum Lata is not the customer of respondent no.1. The connection number is in the name of smt.Azad Kaur and not in the name of Smt. Kusum Lata. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to delete the wrongly attached Aadhar card of Smt. Azad Kaur with the account of Smt. Kusum Lata and to attach the correct Aadhar Card of Smt. Kusum Lata. Perusal of document ‘Annexure- JNA’ shows that Rs.1989.59/-say Rs.1990/- has been credited in the account of Smt. Kusum Lata due to negligence of respondent no.1. As such opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay the amount of Rs.1990/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.04.2019 till its realization and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
