Date of Filing : 05.04.2017 Date of Final Order : 08.09.2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint case may be described as follows :-
One Subhash Chandra Bhadury (Complainant) used to get subsidy of his LPG connection through his Bank Account No.1967076621 of the Central Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch and his KYC was up-dated. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (OP No.2) stopped crediting subsidy of LPG Cylinder since 05.01.2016 without intimating any reason to the Complainant. On 21.04.2016, the Complainant wrote letters to the OP No.1 i.e. Suchitra Das, Distributor of Tufanganj Indane Gas Agency ( O.P.No.1) and the Assistant Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Area Office, Siliguri ( O.P.No.2) and requested them to let him know the reason for non-crediting the subsidy amount in his Bank Account. The Ops did not respond to the said letter dated 21.04.2016 and ultimately, both the Ops informed him over telephone in July, 2016 that his Bank Account at Central Bank of India, Tufanganj had not been linked with Aadhar. The Complainant appealed to the Branch Manager, CBI, Tufanganj on 26.10.2016 and came to know that his Saving Bank Account was linked with Aadhar. On 27.10.2016, the Complainant claimed subsidy for 8 LPG Cylinders by writing letters to the Ops.
As no response was received from the end of the Ops, the Complainant filed an application before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar with a prayer for settlement. A meeting was held on 17.01.2017 in the Office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar where the Ops were present at the time of hearing. The Ops informed that the Complainant closed his Account No.1967076621 of Central Bank of India, Tufanganj and opened a new Account in the same Bank which had not been intimated to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for which no subsidy amount was credited to the Account of the Complainant. On 17.01.2017, subsidy for 6 LPG cylinders had been credited in the Account of the Complainant in Bandhan Bank. The Complainant asserted that Complainant never closed his Account at CBI, Tufanganj and the Ops credited the subsidy for 6 LPG cylinders out of 11 in the Savings Account of the Complainant at Bandhan Bank. The Ops also informed the Complainant that subsidy amount for 5 LPG cylinders could not be credited to the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant as his Bank Account was not linked with Aadhar. The Complainant claimed the un-credited subsidy amount of Rs.924.46, cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
The case was filed on 05.04.2017 and admitted on 10.04.2017. On 05.05.2017, both the Ops put their appearance through their Ld. Agents and ultimately the OP No.2 filed w/v on 07.06.17 and the OP No.1 did not file w/v and order of ex-parte hearing was passed against the OP No.1 on 21.06.17.
The OP No.2 in his w/v dated 07.06.17 denied the material allegation made out in the complaint petition against him and asserted that the complaint case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action against the OP No.2 and the Complainant is barred under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been asserted that Central Bank of India, Tufanganj is a necessary party and the OP No.2 is none but an employee of Indian Oil Corporation of India Ltd. Hence, the proceeding could not be instituted against him without impleading Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The OP No.2 had never played any role to stop/debar the Complainant from receiving the subsidy amount as subsidies of LPG cylinders are duly paid in respective Aadhar linked Bank Accounts which are to be duly updated and corrected by the consumers themselves. The OP No.2 also asserted that the receipt of the alleged letters from the Complainant is a matter to be proved by the Complainant. The said letters were not addressed through proper grievance redressal system of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. On receiving the complaint from the Complainant dated 10.01.2017 regarding non-receipt of subsidy amount, the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar held a meeting on 17.01.2017 at his Office where the Complainant was absent. Hence, the OP No.2 had no latches or negligence. The Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar recorded that Aadhar No. of the Complainant remained inactive as the Complainant closed his existing Bank Account where Aadhar No. was linked and the Complainant opened a new Account in the same Bank i.e. Central Bank of India, Tufanganj in which the Aadhar No. was not linked with the new Account. Therefore, the subsidy amount was not credited to the Complainant’s new Account. The Complainant opened a Bank Account with the Bandhan Bank where his Aadhar No. was linked and subsidy of 6 cylinders was credited on 16.01.2017 as shown in the Bank’s Statement and the Complainant confirmed the same over telephone. Expectedly, it was found that the problem arose due to change of Account by the Complainant and the OP No.2 had nothing to do with it. The OP No.2 failed to understand as to how subsidy amount of 6 cylinders could be paid through Bandhan Bank, had the Complainant himself not informed the same to the OP No.1. The pleading of the Complainant that without his knowledge the subsidy amount as paid through Bandhan Bank was absolutely false and frivolous. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and the reason as to why the subsidy was not processed had duly been communicated to the Complainant through communication dated 11.03.2017. As per record of the OP No.2, the Aadhar linking status of the Complainant was showing inactive for the booking done on 05.01.2016. The Aadhar would have been remained inactive because the subsidies were getting processed but the same could not get credited to the Complainant’s Account and it was waiting for the Aadhar to get active. The Complainant was contacted and he was informed regarding his inactive Aadhar status in Portal and on 16.01.2017, his parked subsidies against 6 Refills had been credited to his new Account and were settled on18.01.2017. Unfortunately, remaining 5 out of 11 parked subsidies against earlier Refills for the period from 05.01.2016 to 07.06.2016 got expired due to inactiveness of Aadhar for such a long period. It is pertinent to mention here that the release of subsidy amount is a decision of the Central Govt. of India and OP No.2 is acting as a Facilitator for getting the subsidy amount to the Account of the consumer. The process of disbursing subsidy is done through the Aadhar Payment Bridge System by the Govt. of India through NPCI and its participating Banks. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
On the basis of above versions of both sides, the following points are framed for consideration:
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos.1 & 2.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Complainant himself submitted that he is a consumer under the Ops as he used to get service of the Ops for taking delivery of LPG Cylinders on payment of consideration. He has argued that the place of business of the OP No.1 is at Tufanganj which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and his claim is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 submits that the Complainant cannot get any relief against the OP No.2.
On going through the complaint petition, w/v and on a careful consideration and submission of both parties, it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act, 1986 and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. Hence, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
The Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of LPG Gas Cylinder and his subsidy amount was duly credited in his Central Bank of India Account at Tufanganj before 05.01.2016. He further argued that he wrote a letter to the OP No.2 with a copy to OP No.1 on 21.04.16 asking them to inform him the reason for non-crediting of his LPG subsidy amount (Exhbt.1) but they did not pay any heed to it and ultimately, the Complainant came to know from the Ops over phone in July, 2016 that his LPG subsidy amount could not be credited in his Bank Account due to dis-linking of his Aadhar with his Bank Account. He further argued that he met Branch Manager, CBI, Tufanganj on 26.10.2016 and came to know that his Savings Bank Account had link with Aadhar (Ext.2). He said that he informed the OPs in writing about the facts with supported documents and claimed subsidy for 8 LPG cylinders (Ext.3) but of no result. He further argued that on 05.01.2017 he submitted an application to the Regional Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar praying for settlement and on 17.01.2017 the OPs stated in the mediation that the Complainant closed his earlier Account No. 1967076621 at CBI, Tufanganj and opened a new Account in the said Bank without intimating the Oil Co. for which subsidy amount could not be credited in his Account and on 17.01.2017, the amount for 6 LPG cylinders was credited to the Account of Bandhan Bank of the Complainant (Ext.3). He submitted that he never closed his Account No. 1967076621 and never opened any new Bank account at Central Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch but subsidy for 6 LPG cylinders had been credited to his Savings Bank account in Bandhan Bank. He argued that subsidy amount for 5 cylinders during the period from January, 2016 to June, 2016 had not been credited to his Account and the OP No.2 informed him that the left-over subsidies were expired and could not be processed as the LPG subsidies were processed multiple times but were failed due to negative Aadhar and now expired. He submitted that he had not received the total subsidy amount of Rs.924.50 for 5 LPG cylinders during the period from 05.01.2016 to 10.06.2016 due to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. He prays for compensation of Rs.924.50 as the non-credited amount of subsidy, Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 did not take part in argument but filed written argument on 07.09.17. It appears from the record that the OP No.1 & 2 put their appearance on 05.05.2017 through Ld. Agents and ultimately, OP No.2 filed w/v on 07.06.2017 and the case against OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.06.2017.
We have gone through the complaint application, w/v of the OP No.2 and the documents and filed by both parties. The Complainant is a consumer of LPG under the OPs and he used to take delivery of the LPG cylinder from the OPs and subsidy amount of LPG supply was credited to his CBI Account being Account No.196076621 prior to 05.01.2016. It is clear from Ext.1 that the Complainant informed the matter in writing on 21.04.16 to the OP No.2 with a copy to OP No.1 stating that the matter was consulted with the Bank and found no fault in Aadhar and he requested to release his subsidy. There is no document or statement on record that the Ops responded to the letter of the Complainant dated 21.04.2016. Ultimately, after lodging application before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar a mediation was held though the Complainant was not present on 17.01.2017 and subsidy amount for 6 cylinders out of 11 was credited to the Bandhan Bank Savings Account of the Complainant on 16.01.17. Admittedly, the subsidy amount for 5 cylinders had not been credited in any Account of the Complainant. It is the version of the OP No.2 that the subsidy amount could not be processed as Aadhar link of the Bank Account of the Complainant was inactive. It has been clearly pointed out in para-2.13 of the evidence on affidavit submitted by the OP No.2 regarding process of disbursing subsidy amount of LPG cylinders. There is no doubt that the subsidy is a concession given by the Govt. of India and the Ops had no gain for non-crediting the subsidy amount for 5 cylinders in the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. The Complainant relied on (Annex 2) a copy of letter addressed to the Branch Manager, CBI, Tufanganj on which it had been endorsed by the Bank officials on 26.09.16 that Aadhar Card No. was linked with the Account of the Complainant. It appears from Ext.10 and 11 ( Xerox copy of print out of mails) submitted by the Complainant that Bank linking status was inactive but the Bank linking dated 18.12.15 and the Complainant received the copy on 07.11.16. There is no specific denial that the letter dated 21.04.16 had not been received by the Ops and version of the Complainant in para 4 of the complaint that he contacted the Ops in July, 2016 over phone who informed him that subsidy amount could not be credited to his Account as his Aadhar had been dislinked with Bank Account. The Ops did not respond to the letter dated 21.04.16 at least till July, 2016 and ultimately informed the Complainant (Annex.10 and 11) on 08.11.2016 and 07.11.2016 stating the reason for non-crediting the subsidy amount in the Bank Account of the Complainant and Bank linking status was inactive as it appeared from the site of the UIDAI. If the Ops responded to the letter dated 26.04.16 (Annex.1) in time, the Complainant would not suffer loss for non-crediting subsidy amount and he would not suffer mental agony and he might avoid litigation. The OP No.1 did not contest the case and so it can be said that the Complainant went to OP No.1 in April, 2016 with grievance of non-crediting subsidy amount in his Bank Account and the OP No.1 & 2 in spite of receipt of letter dated 21.04.2016, did not disclose the proper reason for non-crediting subsidy amount in the Bank Account of the Complainant for a considerable period. The Ops should dispose of the grievance of the Complainant without any delay but in the present case, the Ops disposed of the application of the Complainant after a long gap.
In our considered opinion, the silence of the Ops for a considerable period in spite of the fact that the Complainant lodged a complaint with them on 21.04.2016, is nothing but deficiency in service.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ops may be asked to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for their deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost.
Reasons for delay: The Complaint case was filed on 05.04.2017 and was admitted on 10.04.2017. This Forum has taken its best endeavor to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in view of the Section 13(3A) of CP Act, 1986 and the day-to-day orders will speak for itself.
In the result, the Complaint case succeeds in part. Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.2 and ex-parte against the OP No.1 with cost. The Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply the above order, failing which they shall have to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the said accumulated amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a copy of the final order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Post forthwith for information and necessary action as per Rules. The copy of this Final order will also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
