Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/221/2019

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Indian Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Sharma Adv.

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	221 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	12.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.03.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Kumar aged about 42 years son of Sh.Mahabir Singh, resident of House No.21-C, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

 

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Second Floor, World Trade Center, Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi 110001

2]  Sukh Gas Service, Shop NO.57/701, Kesho Ram Complex, (Burail), Sector 45-C, Chandigarh through its owner.

3]  Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Plot NO.6, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Area Manager.

4]  National Payment Corporation of India, through its Chairman, Corporate Office 2^nd Floor, Gulab Bhawan 6 Bhadursha Zafar Marg, ITO, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vikram Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110002

2^nd Address:- The Capital, 1001-A, 10^th Floor, Building Behind ICICI Bank, Bharat Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, 400051

5]  Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, A-Wing Shastri Rajindera Prasad Road, Azad Bhawan RD-IP Estate, New Delhi 110001-110002

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Vipin Kumar Sharma, Counsel of complainant

              OP No.1, 2 & 5 exparte

   Sh.M.S.Rana, Counsel of OP NO.3.

   Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Counsel of OP No.5

             

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant is holder of one Gas Connection No.CX14113919, SV No.100000532 from OP No.2 since 2014 (Ann.C-1). It is stated that the complainant neither relinquished nor given up the subsidies granted by Govt. of India on the LPG Cylinders.  It is submitted that from June, 2016 the complainant is being charged fully, without any subsdy, for the LPG Gas Cylinder by OP NO.2, whereas earlier, the subsidies were provided to him (Ann.C-2).  It is also submitted that the gross income of the complainant is below Rs.10 lacs per annum, so he is very well entitled to get subsidies being granted by the Govt. of India (Ann.C-3).  The complainant wrote letter dated 14.12.2017 to the OP No.2 in this regard followed by legal notice (Ann.C-4 & C-5), but  there was no result.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]      The OPs No.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.5.2019.

 

        The Opposite Party NO.3 has filed written statement stating that the complainant has not hired any service for consideration for providing subsidy and subsidy was to be disbursed as and when it was received from Central Government and therefore, the complainant cannot be treated as ‘consumer’ under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is submitted that Govt. of India had decided that w.e.f. January, 2016, the benefit of LPG subsidy will not be available for LPG Consumers, if  the consumer or his/her spouse had taxable income of more than Rs.10 lacs during the previous financial year computed as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.  It is also submitted that keeping with the approach of trusting the citizens, it was further decided that initially this will be given effect on self-declaration basis while booking cylinders from Jan., 2016 onwards and in view of this, HIG (High End Group) opt out was done for consumer/complainant on 20.6.2016 and this is done automatically bases on annual income of the consumers. Denying other allegations, a prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.  

 

        The OP No.4 has also filed reply stating that neither any averments have been made in the complaint nor any default or deficiency in service has been alleged against answering OP. It is stated that the LPG subsidy is provided by OMC/Government through their Sponsor Banks to the LPG customers of the OMC in such customers’ bank accounts held with its destination bank based on the Aadhaar number seeded/linked by the customer in the bank account in which the customer wants to receive the LPG subsidy.  It is submitted that the role of answering OP is limited only to the extent of providing an electronic link between the sponsor Bank of the OMC and the Destination Bank to enable the OMC to electronically initiate the transaction instruction to transfer the LPG subsidy directly into the Aadhaar seeded account of the LPG customer.  It is also submitted that once the OMC initiates the successful transaction instruction to remit the LPG subsidy in the customer’s bank account, it is the responsibility of the Destination Bank of the customer to provide actual credit of funds and the answering OP has no responsibility towards the OMC or to the LPG customer for making the payment towards the LPG subsidy to the LPG customer.  It is pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer qua answering OP and answering OP is under no obligation to the complainant for payment of LPG subsidy. Denying other allegations, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

        OP No.5 also did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 6.1.2023.

          

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

5]      The sole grouse of the complainant, who is holder of LPG Gas connection, is regarding non-release of subsidy amount by OPs against the purchase of LPG Cylinder.

 

6]      First it is to be seen that whether the complainant, seeking subsidy relief, is a ‘consumer’ as defined under The Consumer Protection Act.

 

7]      We put reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission passed in R.P.No.3105 of 2017 titled as Gauri Devagan Vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency and Others decided on 25.06.2018, wherein it has been held that:-

“The State Commission has rightly observed that the subsidy amount is sent directly to the bank account by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, hence local dealer and local bank have very limited role and no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties.  Moreover, the person claiming subsidy is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as held by this Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr, Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other forum, as per law.  Thus, the petitioner is not a 'Consumer' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, the complaint was not maintainable.

 

        From the above settled position of law, it is clear that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of The Consumer Protection Act and the complainant can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other Forum, as per law.

8]      In view of above findings, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or some other Forum as per law for redressal of his grievance.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th March, 2023          

                                                                              Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER