Haryana

Panchkula

CC/239/2017

ASHISH KULSHRESHTHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANCHKULA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LTD & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINEET TANEJA

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal COMMISSION, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	239 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	31.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2022

 

Ashish Kulshreshtha S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Kulshreshtha, R/o House No. 642, IInd Floor, Sector-8, Panchkula.

                                                                                   …….Complainant

Versus

1.     Panchkula Roller Flour Mills Limited through its Managing Director, 79, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No. 850, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

3.     M/s PayU Payments Private Limited, 9^th Floor, Bestech Business Tower, Sohna Road, Sector -48, Gurugram.

4.     Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana, 2^nd Floor, 30 Bays Building Sector-17C, Chandigarh.

5.     Haryana State Transport Department through Regional Transport Officer, Panchkula, Ist Floor, Bus Stand, Sector-5, Panchkula.

6.     Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Registering and Licensing Authority, Panchkula, Mini-Secretariat, Sector-1, Panchkula.

   ….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date

 

Before:              Shri Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                       

For the Parties:   Shri Abhineet Taneja, Advocate, Counsel for the                              Complainant.

        Ms. Jyoti Rani, Advocate, Counsel for OP No.1.

        Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate, Counsel for OP No.2.

        Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate, Counsel for OP No.3.

        Ms. Pinki Sharma, Authorized Representative of OP No.4.

        OP No.5 ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2017.

        Shri Sajjan Kumar, Authorized representative of OP No.6.

 

Order

(SATPAL, president)

 1.            The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the Complainant is the account holder of OP No. 2 having account no. 50100029600889 and is also using debit card and credit card of the bank i.e. OP No. 2.In the month of February 2017, the Complainant purchased one Tata Tiago Car from the OP No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 5,04,796/-. In order to make the payment of Rs. 28,180/- being registration charges for car, on 21.03.2017, the challan was filled up online through website i.e. https://egrashry.nic.in and on failure of first transaction using credit card, second transaction was made through credit card again, and again on failure of second transaction, third transaction was made through debit card and again on failure, fourth transaction was again made through debit card, which again was failed. Subsequently, the Complainant again did the transaction of Rs.28,180/- vide transaction No. HRY17030006505 and this time, the said transaction was successful and provisional registration certificate of car alongwith e-receipt was generated by the OP No. 5.The OP No.3 which is the gateway sent the mail dated 21.03.2017 to the Complainant intimating therein that it had successfully transferred the money to the OP No. 4 and in this regard, the OP No. 3 sent the merchant order ID and Payment ID to the Complainant. The money was debited from the account of the Complainant five times and a perusal of the e-receipts generated by the OP No. 5 shows that all the five transactions were pertaining to one chassis no. i.e. MAT626344GKN49561. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount irrespective of the fact that with whom the excess money, debited from the account of the Complainant, is lying i.e.1,12,720/-The OP No. 5 charged a sum of Rs. 2,410/- as penalty from the Complainant as late registration fees. The Complainant sent the mail dated 21.03.2017 at 3:31 PM to the OP No. 4 but the OP No. 4 vide mail dated 18.05.2017 communicated its inability to resolve the issue and asked the Complainant to approach the OP No. 5. The Complainant approached the OP No.5 but no heed was paid to the request of the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant suffered financial loss, undue harassment and mental agony due to unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs.

2.            Upon notice, the OPs No. 1 to 4 and 6 appeared and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable.

                On merits, it is stated by the OP No.1 that the Complainant purchased one Tata Tiago XZ (petrol) car from the OP No. 1 on 08.02.2017 vide invoice no. CR01-17-153168139671 and approached the dealership on 29.03.2017 for the registration of vehicle and the registration process was successful after the online payment of Rs. 29,420/- with the penalty of Rs. 2,410/- and interest on penalty of Rs. 270/- and other registration charges etc. As no allegations have been made against the OP No. 1; hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed against the OP No.1

                On merits, it is stated by the OP No.2 that the amount was credited to OP No. 3 which is gateway which transfers money from banks to merchant i.e. OP No.4.Perusal of e-mail dated 18.04.2017 addressed to the Complainant shows that the OP No. 3 admitted the transaction with payment ID 142299139, 142295910, 142300335 and 142302008 has been successful. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the amount in question was duly transferred to the OP No. 3 by the OP No.2.

                On merits, it is stated by the OP No.3 that the Complainant failed four times before successful payment of the registration money and that the OP No. 3 sent the details of the transaction to the Complainant through e-mail. The OP No. 4 has no role as far as the registration of the said car is concerned as the OP No. 3 just provides the platform to the merchant to facilitate the online transaction between the merchant and its customers and thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

                On merits, it is stated by the OP No.4 that the egras is a portal for government receipts and is monitored by the Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana at Chandigarh. The amount in question was credited to the account of DDO of the Haryana State Transport Department i.e. OP No. 5. All the transactions made by the Complainant to the OP No. 5 were successful and the challans were generated only when the payment is successful. The money was debited from the account of the Complainant five times because five transactions were initiated by him and egras portal merely acted as an intermediary. It is not in the records of egras portal whether all these transactions were pertaining to only one chassis number of the said vehicle. The refund of excess payment will be done only by the DDO/Office concerned.

                The e-mails dated 23.03.2017 and 14.07.2017 were received by the Department from the Complainant and the reply was sent to the Complainant by suggesting to file his complaint on helpdesk as per set procedure designed by Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryanabut the Complainant did not file his complaint with the OP No. 4 on the link forwarded by the OP No. 4 vide e-mails.

                Notice was issued to the OP No. 5 through registered post on which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to the OP No.5; hence it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non-appearance of the OP No.5, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission (earlier known as Forum) vide its order dated 11.12.2017.

                On merits, it is stated by the OP No.6 that the Complainant himself paid the requisite fee online and there is no fault of the OP No. 6. As per rule 14 of the notification dated 03.02.2017 issued by the Transport Department, Haryana, the owner of a vehicle motor has to apply in Form No. V to the Taxation officer or any other officer authorized by the State Govt. for refund of the amount of tax or penalty paid by such owner in excess of the amount due from him within six months of the payment. Further, as per rule 15 of the notification, refund order shall be issued in Form VI and the payment of the amount mentioned therein shall be credited in the account of the owner after following the e-billing procedure. The Complainant has never contacted the office of OP No. 6 for complaint of excess payment or for refund of the excess payment.

3.             To prove his case, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A and C-B along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. The Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered his affidavit as Annexure R1/A in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. The Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered his affidavit as Annexure R2/A in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. Nodal Officer of the OP No.4 has stated that the reply dated 25.07.2018, which was submitted on record on 02.11.2018, may be read in evidence of the OP No. 4.     The evidence of OPs No. 3 and 6 was closed by the Commission vide its order dated 22.06.2021.

4.             We have heard the parties and gone through the record available on file including the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the OP No.4, carefully and minutely.

5.             Admittedly, a new vehicle, namely, Tata Tiago Car was purchased by the Complainant from OP No.1 on 08.02.2017 vide Invoice Annexure C-1 and the payment in connection with the registration fee of the said car was required to be made through website i.e. https://egrashry.nic.in, which is a portal of OP No. 4 i.e. Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana at Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that the Complainant in order to make the payment of Rs.28,180/- for the registration of the said car made four transactions through his Credit Card as well as Debit Card. It is also not in dispute that the status of payment of registration fee amounting to Rs. 28,180/- in each transaction was reflected as failed vide Annexure C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-9. Even the entitlement of the Complainant to the refund of a sum of Rs.1,12,720/- as claimed in the present complaint, which was paid by him, in excess, is also not in dispute.

6.             The moot question in the present complaint is to ascertain the reasons which led the Complainant to indulge into repeated transactions of payments amounting to Rs. 1,12,720/-. Another question for adjudication is as to who has to refund the undisputed amount of Rs. 1,12,720/- to the Complainant, which was paid by him in excess.

7.             After the failure of the transaction pertaining to the payment of registration fee of the said car on 21.03.2017, the Complainant made the transaction No. HRY17030006505 on 29.03.2017, which was successful and ultimately, provisional registration certificate of the car alongwith receipt was generated, which is available on record as Annexure C-10.

8.             Before looking into the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the OPs, we deem it expedient to mention here that the Complainant indulged into repeated transactions on 21.03.2017, details of which have been mentioned in Para No. 4 of the complaint and Para No. 4 and 5 of his Affidavit Annexure C-A, solely on account of the fact that status of the payment was reflected each time as failed vide Annexure C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-9. We have perused the Annexures C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-9, which are copies of e-receipts of fee and tax of the Transport department i.e. OP No. 5 and find that the status of payment in each of the said receipts has been shown as failed and thus, no lapse can be attributed on the part of the Complainant while indulging into repeated transactions on 21.03.2017 for the purposes of making payment in connection with the registration fee of the said car.

9.             Now, we turn to the defence version taken by each of the OPs. The OP No. 1 is the seller of the said car, and thus, there is no lapse and deficiency on his part. Further, in so far as the allegations leveled by the Complainant pertaining to the charging of penalty amounting to Rs. 2,410/- is concerned, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OP No. 1 as  the Complainant had approached the OP No. 1 in connection with the payment of registration fee through website https://egrashry.nic.in on 21.03.2017 only whereas the registration fee was required to be paid within a month i.e. prior to 08.03.2017.

10.            The OP No. 2 is the Bank and we find no lapse and deficiencies on its part as payment was released from the account of the Complainant each time as and when desired by the Complainant.

11.            The OP No. 3 is admittedly payment gateway through which the payments in question was transferred in each transaction to egras portal belonging to the OP No. 4 i.e Treasuries and accounts Department, Haryana, from the account of the Complainant and thus, no lapse and deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OP No. 3.

12.            The version of the OP No. 4 is that the competent authority to resolve the issue is Haryana State Transport Department i.e the OP No. 5 as the amount was credited into the account of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (hereinafter referred to as DDO) of the said department and egras is only a portal for making payments. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the OP No. 4 contended that the e-mails dated 23.03.2017 and 14.07.2017 sent by the Complainant were duly responded vide e-mail dated 24.03.2017 and 14.07.2017 respectively informing the Complainant that he can approach the helpdesk of the department as per set procedure. It is further contended that all the transactions made by the Complainant were successful and if any, tenderer wants the amount of any specific challan to be refunded, then, he is required to approach the DDO. It is further contended that in the present case, the Complainant deposited the amount under the head ‘0364’ belonging to the OP No. 6.

13.            Since, the amount in question is lying deposited with the OP No. 5; hence, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OP No. 4 as it had successfully transferred the amount as received from the OP No.3.

14.            The OP No. 5 has preferred not to contest the present complaint and accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2017.

15.            The OP No. 6 has not disputed the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,12,720/- by the Complainant vide challans i.e. Annexure C-11, C-12, C-13 and C-14, the details whereof for the sake of clarity and convenience is given as under in tabular form:-

Sr. No.	Challans	GRN no. generated through challan (Merchant Order ID showing transaction No.	Amount (in Rs.)	Payment ID	Date	Status
1	Annexure C-11	0025850364	28,471/- (28,180 + 291  as Convenience fees)	142295910	21.03.2017	Success
2	Annexure C-12	0025851414	28,471/- (28,180 + 291  as Convenience fees)	142299139	21.03.2017	Success
3	Annexure C-13	0025851776	28,415/- (28,180 + 235  as Convenience fees)	142300335	21.03.2017	Success
4	Annexure C-14	0025852298	28,415/- (28,180 + 235  as Convenience fees)	142302008	21.03.2017	Success

       

16.            A perusal of above mentioned challans make it evident that amount was deposited in the office name i.e. ‘0364-Sub-Divisional Officer, Panchkula’. The OP No. 6 vide its reply has clarified that as per rule 14 of the notification dated 03.02.2017 issued by the Transport Department, Haryana, the owner of a vehicle motor has to apply in Form No. V to the Taxation officer or any other officer authorized by the State Govt. for refund of the amount of tax or penalty paid by such owner in excess of the amount due from him within six months of the payment. Further, it has been mentioned that refund order shall be issued in Form VI and the payment of the amount mentioned therein shall be credited in the account of the owner after following the e-billing procedure.

17.            We have perused both the e-mail dated 24.04.2017 at 12:07 AM and 12:12 AM sent by the Complainant to the OP No. 5 requesting for the refund of the payment made in excess and thus, the request  was made by the Complainant much before the expiry of six months. There is no response from the OP No. 5 to the said e-mails and thus, lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No. 5 is evident. Furthermore, the status of each transaction qua payments amounting to Rs. 1,12,720/- was shown as failed at the behest of the OP No.5, the details whereof for the sake of clarity and convenience may be summarized as under:-

Sr. No.	Transaction No.	Transaction ID/Payment ID No.	Chassis No.	Amount (in Rs.)	Status
1	Null	HR3T170300000485	MAT626344GKN49561	28,180/-	Failed vide Annexure C-3
2	HRY17030004734	HR3T170300000486	MAT626344GKN49561	28,180/-	Failed vide Annexure C-5
3	HRY17030004740	HR3T170300000487	MAT626344GKN49561	28,180/-	Failed vide Annexure C-7
4	HRY17030004770	HR3T170300000490	MAT626344GKN49561	28,180/-	Failed vide Annexure c-9

 

                The transactions were shown as failed despite the fact that a sum of Rs. 28,180/- was debited from the account of the Complainant in each transaction; hence, there was lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.5.

18.            The OP No. 6 is also found deficient while rendering services to the Complainant as it had never made any effort in the direction of refund of the payments made in excess. Even during the pendency of the present complaint, the necessary formalities i.e. filing of an application in Form V as required vide rule 14 of the notification dated 03.02.2017 issued by the Transport Department, Haryana, has not been got completed from the Complainant, by the OP No. 6. Furthermore, no correspondence has ever been made by the OP No. 6 asking the Complainant to fill up the necessary forms etc. so that the payment made in excess amounting to Rs. 1,12,720/- could be refunded to the Complainant. Needless to mention here that no litigant approaches the Courts/Tribunals/Forums/Commissions for the redressal of his grievances out of his choice but is compelled to indulge into litigation due to indifferent and lackadaisical attitude of the opposite party i.e. the service provider.

19.            In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.5 and 6 while rendering services to the Complainant and hence the Complainant is entitled to relief.

20.            Coming to relief, it is found that the Complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,12,720/-. The Complainant is directed to submit the duly filled up and signed Form No. V as required vide rule 14 of the notification dated 03.02.2017 issued by the Transport Department, Haryana, in the office of the OP No. 6, who shall forward the same to the competent authority within ten days of the receipt of the said application and the competent authority to whom the said application in Form V is forwarded by the OP No. 6 shall, within a period of 45 days, ensure the refund of the amount of Rs.1,12,720/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit i.e. 21.03.2017 till its realization. The OPs No. 5 and 6 and the relevant competent authority to whom the said application in Form V is forwarded by the OP No. 6 shall ensure that the exercise of refund as directed above, is completed within a period of 45 days. The prayer of the Complainant regarding the refund of Rs. 2,410/- charged as penalty from him is declined as the registration fee was deposited by the Complainant after the stipulated period of one month. The present complaint is dismissed qua the OPs No. 1 to 4.

21.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

                (i)     The OPs No. 5, 6 and the relevant competent authority,  to whom the said application in Form V is forwarded by                           the OP No.6, shall ensure that the amount of Rs.1,12,720/- as directed above, is refunded to the complainant, alongwith                        with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of  deposit till its realization, within a period of 45 days. It is                             made clear that in case, any special sanction from the Govt.  is required, then the same shall be obtained by the OPs No.                     5 and 6, within a period of 45 days.

 

                (ii)    The OPs No. 5 and 6 are directed to make the payment  of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation on                         account of mental agony and physical harassment.

 

                (iii)    The OPs No. 5 and 6 are further directed to make the   payment of Rs. 5,500/- to the Complainant on account of                  litigation charges.

 

22.            The OPs No.5 & 6 shall comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the  date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.5 & 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:21.03.2022

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal       

            Member                     Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Satpal                     

President