DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.
Consumer Complaint No.126 of 2014
Date of institution: 09.09.2014 Date of decision : 07.10.2016
Navneet Mittal S/o Sh. Varinder Singh R/o House No.104, Sector 21-C, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
……..Complainant
Versus
Surbhi Gas Services, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Sales Officer, IOC Limited, Marketing Division, Indane Area office, Tel Bhawan, Plot No.6-A, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Smt. Veena Chahal, Member
Present : Sh. Ashok GuptaAdv. Cl. for the complainant Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Navneet Mittal S/o Sh. Varinder Singh R/o House No.104, Sector 21-C, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant is registered consumer of the OPs and a LPG Gas connection bearing No.765167 was provided by OP No.3 to the complainant through OP No.1. On 11.02.2014 the complainant purchased one LPG gas Cylinder from OP No.1 for Rs.1202.50 paise, vide receipt No.2000102909. At the time of delivery of the said gas cylinder the representative of OP No.1 gave assurance to the complainant that as per policy of the Government, subsidy amount of Rs.733.92 paise is to be refunded to the complainant. The representative of OP No.1 also gave assurance that the said subsidy amount will be transferred in the bank account of the complainant immediately and the same is also mentioned on the top of the payment receipt dated 11.02.2014. But the OPs have not paid the subsidy amount to the complainant. The complainant so many times brought the matter into the notice of the OPs through written letters also, but no action has been taken by the OPs till date. The subsidy amount has been retained by the OPs without any cause and reason. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay the subsidy amount i.e. Rs.733.92 paise along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and loss of prestige and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OPs No.2 and 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint and were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed its written reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the compliant is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts in the complaint, OP No.1 stated that it supplies gas cylinders to the copy holder/registered consumer of the Indian Oil Corporation at the rate fixed by Government of India and as instructed by Indian Oil Corporation. It is further stated that as per policy of the Government of India the consumer has to supply copy of Aadhar Card to the Gas Agency as well as to the Bank where the consumer has bank account, then the amount of subsidy is transferred by the government into the bank account of the consumer. OP No.1 has nothing to do with transfer of subsidy amount as the same is a policy matter of Government of India. It is further stated that in the present case the gas cylinder was given to the complainant for Rs.1202.50 as the same was for domestic non subsidized cylinder. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint it prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence copy of voucher/receipt Ex. C-1, copy of passbook Ex. C-2, his affidavit Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Yagya Dutt Ex. OP-1, attested copy of history sheet of complainant account Ex. OP-2, attested copy of direct benefits transfer of LPG(DBTL)Scheme Ex. OP-3, attested copy of partnership deed Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main dispute involved in the present complaint is that, OP No.1 committed unfair trade practice by not paying the subsidy amount for the domestic LPG cylinder delivered on 11.02.2014. He pleaded that on the rest of the dates OP No.1 paid the subsidy amounts, but on the particular date i.e 11.02.2014, it kept the subsidy amount with itself. The ld. counsel argued that OP No.1 is involved in unfair trade practice by not making the payment of subsidy to the consumers. He further argued that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of OP No.1.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 submitted that the alleged allegations are totally baseless and without any evidence. He pleaded that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence in support of his contentions. The ld. counsel argued that it is evident from the history sheet of refilling account of complainant i.e Ex. OP-2; shows DSC(Domestic Subsidized Cylinder) and DNSC, stands for Domestic non-Subsidized Cylinder. The ld. counsel argued that it is established that on 11.02.2014 the complainant was not entitled to receive the subsidized cylinder, hence, there is no question of non-payment of subsidy to the complainant.
8. After hearing the ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written as well as oral arguments, we find force in the contentions made by the ld. counsel for OP No.1. As per our opinion it stands proved that the cylinder received by the complainant on 11.02.2014 was of DNSC(Domestic Non-Subsidized Cylinder) as evident from the history sheet of refilling account of complainant i.e Ex. OP-2, thus the complainant was not entitled to receive any subsidy.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OPs had not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice as it is established from Ex.OP-2. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.
10. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 23.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 07.10.2016 (A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Veena Chahal) Member
