Orissa

Cuttak

CC/56/2018

Narendra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Naba Basanta Gas Distributor - Opp.Party(s)

R C Nayak

25 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                   C.C.No.56/2018

 

         Narendra Sahoo,

S/O:Late Birakishore Sahoo,

Vill:Tilda,P.O:Tilda,P.S:Salipur,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager,

Naba Basanta Gas Distribution,

At/PO/PS:Salipur,Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

(HPCL),5^th Floor,Alok Bharati Complex,

Saheed Naghar,Bhubaneswsar,Pin -751007,

Dist:Khurda,Odisha represented by its Regional Manager.

 

3.         Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

(HPCL),Corporate Office:Petroleum House,

6^th Floor,No.17,Churchgaate,Jamsedji Tata Road,

Near Mantralaya, Opp. LIC Office,

Mumbai,Pin-400020,Maharastra,India,

Represented by its Managing Director.... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.05.2018

Date of Order:  25.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Ms. R.C.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps       :                 Mr. R .K.Pattanaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

           

            The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he is a consumer of domestic cooking gas vide consumer No.607324 and was getting subsidy from the Govt. as per the scheme on purchase of gas cylinders.  When such facility of the Govt. scheme was not given to him inspite of his repeated endeavours, he had approached this Commission claiming compensation from the O.P to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written versions.  According to the written versions, the O.Ps claim that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this case, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  The subsidy as claimed by the complainant is not to prerogative of any of the O.Ps and thus they have prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary costs.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments from either sides, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in this case.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P in this  case?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had adopted any unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation as claimed by him?

Issues No.1 & 2.

            For the sake of convenience Issues no.1 & 2 are taken up together first for consideration.  The crux of the dispute in this case is the ‘subsidy’ which the complainant claims and could not avail the same.  In this regard, the O.Ps have cited a pertinent decision in the case of in Indian Overseas Bank Vrs. Purna Chandra Nayak & Ors. reported in F.A. No.270 of 2017 of S.C.D.R.C,Cuttack,Odisha and   reliance has been placed on the following decisions held by Hon’ble National Commission  (i)Himachal Weavers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and Others, III 1993 CPJ, (ii) Choudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. Rewari Central Cooperative Bank and Another decided on 8.2.2013 in R.P.489/12 where in it is held that the definition of consumer as provided under the C.P. Act does not indicate that “subsidy” comes under the purview of definition of ‘consumer’, because there is no element of service being rendered by appellant to respond within the definition of ‘service’ as per Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  “Subsidy” being given by the Government is a free financial assistance for which no charges or fees or consideration is paid by beneficiary of the “subsidy”.  Thus, the complaint case cannot be said to be maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of consumer and he has no cause of action to file this case.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in the negative.

Issues No.3 & 4.

            When the complainant is not a consumer under the O.Ps as per the definition of ‘consumer’ and no service is hired by him, definitely there is no deficiency in service  and the O.Ps have not adopted any unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, these issues are answered.

Issue No.5.

            From the above discussion, it is made out that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;       

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.