O R D E R

SRI GANTA APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER

     This complaint is filed U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking reliefs, directing the OPS jointly and severally to pay the Domestic Gas subsidy amount of Rs.671/- to the Petitioner-Complainant, to pay interest there on @ 9% p.a.,, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, to pay costs of the litigation and to grant such other relief or reliefs which the Honourable Forum  deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice on the following averments:

1. The Complainant is a permanent resident of Belagam, Vizianagaram District and the respondent NO.1 is the Authorized HP Gas Agent of OP NO.2 and doing business in Parvathipuram area, who used to supply the domestic gas cylinders to the consumers regularly in the said area. On 1-6-1991, the complainant got HP Gas Connection with consumer No.14988 with spare cylinder from OPs No.1 and 2 who issued a subscription voucher of consumer’s copy (Gas bond) and Domestic Gas Consumer Card to the complainant and since then, the complainant used to consume Gas from the above Opposite Parties, who used to issue domestic gas cylinders to the complainant regularly on payment of Rs.410/-. The complainant used to consume and receive the domestic gas from the said OPs. Subsequently, the respondents introduced a new system and procedure for releasing the domestic gas to consumers and the total gas amount including subsidy of Rs.1081/- is to be paid by the consumers and after releasing the gas cylinder, the subsidy amount of Rs.671/- will be refunded to the consumer by way of credit to the Consumers Bank Account by the OPs. The OPs gave instructions to the consumers to produce Bank Account Pass Book and Adar cards to their Offices and Banks and accordingly, the complainant submitted his Bank Account Pass Book bearing NO.004010021051177 of Andhra Bank Belagam Branch, Parvathipuram and Adar Card bearing No. 942129584621 to the 1^st respondent, who collected the total cash amount of Rs.1081/- towards the cost of Gas cylinder and also the subsidy amount from the complainant. The first respondent issued a receipt No.100454 dated 3-12-2013 to the complainant. At that time, the first respondent clearly stated to the complainant that the subsidy amount will be refunded and credited to the Complainant’s Bank Account within few days but was not credited to the Complainant’s Account and therefore, he approached the First Respondent with a request to arrange refund of the subsidy amount to his account but the first respondent did not make any efforts on the said matter and every time, the first respondent used to insult the complainant to go to Delhi and ask the subsidy amount of Rs.671/- from the Central Minister Mr.P.Chidambaram, before public and  as such the complainant suffered mental agony which cannot be estimated simply in terms of money. On 3-2-2014, the complainant issued written representation to the first respondent to release and credit the gas subsidy amount to his account but the 1^st OP did not do so. After a lapse of nearly 4 months, the complainant issued a Legal Notice on 22-3-2014 to the respondents demanding them to arrange refund of the subsidy amount within 7 days of receipt of the said notice but the respondents having received the aforesaid notice, did neither made efforts to credit the subsidy amount nor given any reply to the said notice. Therefore, there is deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of the OPs which attracts the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, since the complainant was also subjected to mental agony and financial loss, though he is legally entitled to receive the domestic gas subsidy amount. Hence, this complaint.
2. Counter filed by the OPs 1 and 2, denying the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.
3. The 1^st OP admitted that he is having HP Gas distribution under the name and style of M/s Pentapati Kama Raju, HP Gas Agents, having their office at Parvathpuram Town  and that the complainant is a consumer who obtained HP Gas connection on 1-6-1991 bearing Consumer No.14998 with spare cylinder from OPs 1 and 2  and that the complainant submitted Bank Account of Andhra Bank, Belagam bearing Account No.004010021051177 and also Aadhaar Card bearing No.942129584621 and the OP No.1 collected cash of Rs.1,081/- from the complainant on 3-12-2013 towards cost of the gas cylinder and also subsidy amount. The OP No.1 also submitted that the complainant approached this Honourable Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts, since the Central Government launched a scheme viz., Direct Benefit Transfer in Domestic LPG (DBTL) to ensure the public in obtaining the subsidy amounts directly to the LPG consumer and in order to have the said facility, the consumers have to become cash transfer complainant to be eligible to receive the subsidy in their bank account and to become a CTC consumer, one has to complete the following 3 steps i.e., 1) to receive the Adar Number 2) Link Aadhaar number to  LPG Consumer Number and 3) Link Adar Number to Bank Account and accordingly, the OP has no responsibility with regard to reimbursement of subsidy amount. It is further submitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,081/- towards cost of Gas cylinder of Rs.488/- and subsidy amount of Rs.593/- to OP NO.1 as per Receipt No.100454 dated 3-12-2013. Therefore, the complainant received the gas cylinder from OP No.1 and accordingly, he is entitled to the subsidy amount of Rs.593/- from the Government, if the consumer adequately completed the aforesaid 3 formalities. After verification from the office records of OP1, it is found that the subsidy amount of Rs.593/- was not credited to the complainant’s Bank account since the complainant did not comply with the 3^rd step i.e., he failed in linking  the Adar Number to the Bank Account. However, the 1^st and 2^nd OPs are in no way  responsible for arranging the subsidy amount to the customers as the scheme was launched by the central Government which is a Direct Benefit Transfer in Domestic LPG (DBTL)directly to the consumers who have to approach the Government for refund of the necessary subsidy amount.
4. It is further submitted that in respect of the Legal Notice got issued by the Complainant, the OP No.1 also got issued a reply to the counsel for the complainant on 19-4-2014, requesting the complainant to drop the proceedings as there arose some mistake in obtaining the refund of the subsidy amount and also mediated through the elders, informing the complainant that the OP no.1 is going to reimburse the said subsidy amount, even though, he did not commit any deficiency of service but only with an intention to avoid unnecessary litigation. But, the complainant did not mend his ways and paid deaf ear to the advice of the elders and also the repeated requests of the OP No.1. However, the OP1 sent two demand drafts for Rs.593/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively towards subsidy amount and Legal Notice charges as demanded by the complainant in his legal notice along with the reply notice dated 9-4-2014. Inspite of the same, the complainant filed this false case against the OPs only with a bad and malicious intention to have a wrongful claim/gain from OP no.1 since the complainant is a chronic litigant and court bird who used to file false cases whenever a person is not bowing his head to the dictated terms of the complainant. Since, there is no cause of action to file this case against the innocent 1^st OP, the Complaint may please be dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
5. OP No.2 submits that the complainant filed this case only to harass this OP since M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), the 2^nd OP is a Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, having its Registered Office at Mumbai and divided into various zones and Regional Offices all over the Country who deals with the Refining and Marketing of Petroleum Products including Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) through its wide net work and the OP-1 is one of its distributors at Parvathipuram as per the Distributorship agreement dated 20-3-2014 and the relationship between the 1^st OP and the 2^nd OP is on principal to principal basis, as per which, the 1^st OP is solely responsible for all actions in conducting the distributorship, since the 1^st OP agreed to and has to indemnify the OP2 as per clauses, terms and conditions of the said LPG Distributorship Agreement against all losses, damages, claims, suits, legal proceedings arising from or in connection with any loss or injury to a person or property in connection with any of the matter arising in the course of any of the contingencies relating to the handling of the dealership business or any of its transactions by the OP NO.1 under the said distributorship agreement. Therefore, the OP2 shall not be a necessary party in this case and accordingly pleads that the OP2 shall be deleted from the case since also the complaint is bad under law for mis-joinder of parties and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.

6.   Exhibits A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B10 are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

7.   Heard arguments.  Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows:-

8.   The OP3 neither present in the proceedings nor submitted counter/evidence affidavit/brief written arguments respectively and also was not represented by an Advocate. The counsel for the complainant and OP No. 1 and 2 presented their arguments reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counters, evidence affidavits and brief written arguments respectively.

9.   The main contention of the complainant is that though he has complied with all the requirements in terms of the new scheme of the Government of India for supply of Gas Cylinder and obtaining subsidy thereon in  his account in Andhra Bank, Belagam, the same was not credited in spite of his vigorous follow up with and requests made to the 1^st OP who collected the total amount of Rs.1,081/- towards the cost of Gas cylinder and also the subsidy amount. It was his further contention that the 1^st OP told him that if he has any grievance, he can go to New Delhi and make a complaint to the Honourble Minister, Mr.P.Chindambaram on the issue and therefore, he was subjected to harassment, humiliation, suffering and mental agony. After a lapse of nearly 4 months, he got issued a legal notice to the respondents on 22-03-2014 and then only the 1^st OP  was moved with the fear of further legal proceedings but until then he did not care the complainant.

10.  The contention of the 1^st OP is that even though he mediated the issue through elders with a request to drop the legal proceedings against him, the complainant did not do so and also refused to receive the 2 DD’s for Rs.593/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively drawn on Andhra Bank, Belagam, Parvathipuram, towards the subsidy amount and legal notice charges as demanded by the complainant in his legal notice along with reply notice dated 19-4-14 and therefore, the OP1 pleads that there is no deficiency of service on his part as he has shown bonafides towards the Consumer. Further, the complaint filed this case with a malafide and malicious intention only to have wrongful gain from OP No.1, even though OP has no responsibility to settle the subsidy amount.

11.  The 2^nd OP pleads that the relationship between the 1^st OP and the 2^nd OP is only on principal to principal basis and OP2 is in no way responsible with the arrangement of the subsidy amount as it is a Direct Benefit Transfer  Scheme introduced by the Government of India. Since, the OP2 is not a necessary party to the dispute, it is pleaded that they may be deleted from the case.

12.  The 3^rd OP was neither present in the proceedings nor submitted counter/evidence affidavit/brief written arguments and also was not represented, since they are not the necessary party, as the District Collector, is not in any way responsible with regard to the said dispute.

13.  Now the Point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service or dereliction of duties on the part of the Opposite Parties?

14.  From the material available on record and the oral arguments submitted by both the parties, it is evident that the Complainant after an elapse of nearly 4 months and vigorous follow up with and visits made to the OP1 coupled with insult caused to him besides mental agony and a feeling of harassment, he filed this complaint also for hitting his self respect though the quantum of subsidy is very meager only with a view to ensure that such insult and harassment should not be caused to any other consumer. Further the tone and content of the expression of the OP1 asking the complainant to go to New Delhi and make a complaint to the Honourable Minister Mr.P.chidambram is unbecoming and unwarranted. Further out of fear of further legal proceedings when the complainant sent legal notice to OPs, then only the 1^st OP moved immediately by arranging 2 DDs one for the subsidy amount and another for legal notice charges by which time, the complainant filed this case. However, when the Aadhaar number of the complainant is found to be not linked to his Bank account, the 1^st OP should not have delivered the said gas cylinder to the complainant by collecting Rs.1,081/- in total from the complainant until it is done so, so as to avoid this unwarranted situation/embarrassment. Hence, the OP1 has contributed to deficiency in service knowingly or unknowingly and also forced the complainant to file this case. As the 2^nd and 3^rd Ops are not the necessary and proper parties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them without costs.

15.  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1^st OP to refund the Gas Subsidy amount of Rs.593/-(Rupees Five Hundred ninety three only) and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards legal expenses besides Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation/damages for mental agony caused to the complainant. Time for compliance of this order is one month from today.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 24^th November, 2014.

PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                                                 

C.C.No.34 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-                   For Opposite Parties:-

PW 1.                            RW 1.

                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

For Opposite Parties:-  

PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER