O R D E R

Per Smt. T.SUNEETHA , MEMBER

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.114.91 and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and costs.    

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant is the consumer of 1^st opposite party with consumer No.901711 and used to get refilled L.P.Gas from 2^nd opposite party at subsidized rates i.e. Rs.410.50ps.   The government of India introduced Cash Benefit Direct Transfer System through out India for depositing subsidy amount in bank account of the customers.  After introducing this system the complainant is getting refilled at non-subsidized rate.  The difference between subsidized and non-subsidized rate i.e., benefit has to be deposited into his bank account bearing No.114810011001198 of Andhra Bank, Guntur.  But the introducer of SBDT is not depositing the exact difference amount into his bank account.  The complainant purchased gas on 21-09-13 vide bill No.130797 at non-subsidized rate Rs.1017/-. At that time the price of the gas was Rs.410.50ps. But the opposite parties on 25-09-13 deposited Rs.553.6ps instead of 606.60ps in the bank account of complainant.  The complainant purchased another cylinder on            14-12-13 vide bill No.182586 for Rs.1105.50ps for which the opposite parties remitted Rs.633.53ps instead of Rs.695/-.  On both occasions the opposite parties remitted less amount of Rs.114.91ps (Rs.53.44ps + Rs.61.47ps) which is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.     Hence the complaint.

3.      Version filed by the 1^st opposite party which is in brief as follows:

          This opposite party being Govt. of India enterprise implements the decisions and policies of the Central Government.  The Govt. of India introduced scheme of Cash Benefit Direct Transfer System.  Under this system the 2^nd opposite party collects an amount of Rs.1017/- from a non-subsidized customer on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party gets commission from the 1^st opposite party.  The non-subsidized customer is not entitled for state subsidy.  For both subsidized and non-subsidized customers Government will collect VAT tax.  The 1^st opposite party will deduct dealer’s commission and VAT tax for both types of customers.  There will not be any difference in payment of amount.

In the instant case of the complainant, if the customer is a subsidized customer, the billing price will be Rs.377.51+dealer’s commission of Rs.37.25ps = Rs.414.76+VAT tax @5% -Rs.20.74=Rs.435.50 paise minus State Govt., subsidy of Rs.25-00 = Rs.410.50 paise.  In case of non-subsidised customer, the billing price will be Rs.930.57+Dealer’s Commission of RS.38/- Rs.968.57+Vat Tax @5% is Rs.48.43 = Rs.1017/- is the amount collected. Vat Tax deducted is Rs.48.43 where as in the case of a subsidized customer the Vat Tax is RS.20.74 only.  The difference of the Vat Tax is Rs.27.69.  The state subsidy of Rs.25.00 will not given in case of non-subsidized customer.  Thus Rs.27.69 + Rs.25.00 = Rs.52.69.  Besides this the difference of dealers commission is Rs.0.75 paise and thus Rs.52.69 + Rs.0.75 = Rs.53.44 is the difference of amount for which complainant is agitating.  The opposite party deducts the amounts uniformly in both subsidized and non-subsidized customers with similar procedure only.  But the complainant wrongly calculated the amounts and was under the illusionary belief that the opposite parties are with holding the amount. 

The detailed statement of price policy and deductions :

There is absolutely any necessity for the subsidizer to face mentl strain while receiving the subsidized gas with Aadhar link.  The gas is supplied with uniform rates except the variation of Vat Tax and with holding of state subsidy in case of non-subsidized customer.  The claim of the complainant is totally misconceived and baseless.  Therefore the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.    

3.      Version filed by the 2^nd opposite party which is in brief as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of H.P.Gas belonging to the 1^st opposite party which used to implement the procedure prescribed by the 1^st opposite party which ultimately guided by the policies of Govt. of India.  The Govt. of India introduced scheme of Cash Benefit Direct Transfer System.  Under this system the 2^nd opposite party collects an amount of Rs.1017/- from a non-subsidized customer on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party gets commission from the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has no independent decision.  In the total transaction the 2^nd opposite party carries on business on commission basis.  After collecting cash from customer and supplying the gas to the customer the 1^st opposite party sends the commission to the 2^nd opposite party.  The non-subsidized customer is not entitled for state subsidy.  For both subsidized and non-subsidized customers Government will collect VAT tax.  The 1^st opposite party will deduct dealer’s commission and VAT tax for both types of customers.  There will not be any difference in payment of amount.

In case of subsidized customer, the billing price will be Rs.377.51+dealer’s commission of Rs.37.25ps = Rs.414.76+VAT tax @5% -Rs.20.74=Rs.435.50 paise minus State Govt., subsidy of       Rs.25-00 = Rs.410.50 paise.  In case of non-subsidised customer, the billing price will be Rs.930.57+Dealer’s Commission of RS.38/- Rs.968.57+Vat Tax @5% is Rs.48.43 = Rs.1017/- is the amount collected Vat Tax deducted is Rs.48.43 where as in the case of a subsidized customer the Vat Tax is RS.20.74 only.  The difference of the Vat Tax is Rs.27.69.  The state subsidy of Rs.25.00 will not given in case of non-subsidized customer.  Thus Rs.27.69 + Rs.25.00 = Rs.52.69.  Besides this the difference of dealers commission is Rs.0.75 paise and thus Rs.52.69 + Rs.0.75 = Rs.53.44 is the difference of amount for which complainant is agitating.  The opposite party deducts the amounts uniformly in both subsidized and non-subsidized customers with similar procedure only.  But the complainant wrongly calculated the amounts and was under the illusionary belief that the opposite parties are with holding the amount. 

The detailed statement of price policy and deductions :

There is absolutely any necessity for the subsidizer to face mental strain while receiving the subsidized gas with Aadhar link.  The gas is supplied with uniform rates except the variation of Vat Tax and with holding of state subsidy in case of non-subsidized customer.  The claim the complainant is totally misconceived and baseless.  Therefore the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.     

4.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the complainant and   no documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

 1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in deducting the dealer commission and VAT tax @ 5% from complainant’s account as deducted  in non-subsidised  customer?

 2.  To What relief?

6. POINT NO.1:- The complainant alleges that he paid towards L.P.Gas of Rs.1017/- for the month of September and Rs.1105.50 for the month of December.  The opposite parties after deducting the cost of cylinder Rs.410.50 have to deposit the difference amount to the complainant’s account which amounted to Rs.606.50 for the month of September Rs.695/- for the month of December.  But the opposite parties deposited only Rs.553.06 (on 25-09-13 Ex.A-3) and Rs.633.53 (on 16-12-13, Ex.A-4) i.e., Rs.53.44 for the month of September and Rs.61.47 for the month of December totaling to Rs.144.91. The opposite parties contended that the amounts are uniformly deducted in both subsidy and non subsidy customers in similar procedure.  The difference amount in dealer commission and VAT Tax which is collected @ 5/- + 25/- state subsidy will be deducted from the amount which is to be deposited to the complainant’s account. 

 As per the complainant the price of the cylinder is Rs.410.50.  As per the opposite parties statement of price policy as mentioned in the version of opposite parties price of the L.P.G. varied i.e., Rs.410.50 for the month of September and Rs.414.50 for the month of December.  There is no clear explanation about the price policy in the version of opposite parties. Deducting the dealer commission and VAT in both the non- subsidized and subsidized customers similarly  is the question of fact which can be inferred only  by perusing the policy .It would have been better if the opposite parties  produce the policy of CBDT system before this Forum.  The opposite parties did not file any document in support of their contention.   Under these circumstances the Forum would take adverse inference that the opposite parties collecting dealers commission and VAT from complainant similar to  non - subsidised customer is not proper.  Therefore this Forum comes to a considered opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. This point is answered in favor of complainant. 

7.      POINT NO.2 :-  Since the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in depositing less amount  in the complainant’s account. Therefore the opposite parties need to pay the un deposited amount and need to compensate the complainant. 

        The complainant sought relief for compensation for Rs.10,00,000/- .  The compensation sought by the complainant should commensurate the loss occurred to the complainant.  The complainant did not substantiate his claim for Rs.10,00,000/-.  Therefore awarding compensation to a minimum of Rs.1,000/- will meet the ends of justice.      

8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below :

1.  The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.144.91ps to the complainant. 

2.   The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

3.   The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant. 

The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amounts ordered in item Nos.1&2 shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the  25^th  day of June, 2014.

          Sd/-XXX                       Sd/-XXX                        Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                        MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:    NIL

                                                            Sd/-XXX

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.