IN THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL   FORUM   

                                                    SONITPUR  AT  TEZPUR

District:                    Sonitpur  

Present:                    Smti A. Devee

                                      President,

District Consumer D.R Forum,

Sonitpur, Tezpur

Sri  P.Das

Member

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal  Forum, Sonitpur

Smti S.Bora

Member

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum,Sonitpur

                                      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.05/2017

1.Smt Ranjula Goswami                                                            :           Complainants

W/O: Sri Ananta Goswami

        2.Sri Ananta Goswami.

        S/O: Late Dr B.K Goswami

        Both residents of H/No. 287 Goswami Cottage

        Murhateteli, Tezpur, Dist: Sonitpur 784001

Vs.                  

                                                                                                      :           Opp. party

1.Indian Oil AOD SO,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Bhavan,

Noonmati, Sector-III, Guwahati, Assam-781020

2.The Occupier/Owner, Rupam Petroleum Company,

Dadhara, P.O: Tezpur 784001

Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Petro Products

3.Sri Himanta Biswas Sharma,

Hon’ble Minister of Finance etc. Government of Assam,

Dispur, Guwahati-781006.

        4.The chief Secetary to the Government of Assam

           Dispur, Guwahati-781006                                 

Appearance:

Mr Ananta Goswami, Advocate.                                                 :               For the Complainant

Mr. Dilip Dey, Advocate                                                                  :               For the Opp. party No.1

Mr. P.C Sarmah,Adv                                                                          :               For the Opp. party No.2

Mr. S.K Sarmah,Asst.Govt Pleader                                         :         For the Opp. party No.3&4

Date of argument                                                                                                :    29-01-18,14-02-18& 06-03-18

      Date of Judgment                                                                                   :   20-04-2018(As the Stenographer                            

                                                                                                              was otherwise busy and the

                                                                                                         Presidentwas on leave, So

                                                                                                 Judgment couldnot be delivered

                                                                                                                   on time)

J U D G M E N T

1. The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that Complainants on 07-01-2017 refuelled their car No.AS-12-J-2721 at the petrol outlet of opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company. They intended to use their debit card to pay its price of Rs.5,10/- but due to absence of swipe machine at the petrol depot, the cashier of the opposite party showed his helplessness in the matter and intimated that swipe machine payment system was not introduced yet and demanded cash payment.The complainants protested and under a compelling circumstances had to pay the value in cash. Alleging that by not allowing to withdraw money from ATMs and Banks as per requirement post demonetization w.e.f 8^th November,2016 and simultaneously changing over to the system of cashless transactions forthnightly without proper supervision to cater to the logistics for better management of convenience of its citizens, the complainants as consumers and  bonafide citizens of the country are harassed and humiliated in the hands of opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company and thereby the opposite parties have collectively rendered a deficient service to the complainants. The complainants have therefor claimed a total relief of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
2. Initially complaint was filed against-

1. The Secretary Ministray of Petroleum & Natural Gas,Shastri Bhavan, New delhi-11000
2. Indian Oil AOD SO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Bhavan,Noonmati,Sector-III,Guwahati,Assam,-781020
3. Field Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ketekibari, Tezpur, Dist: Sonitpur, Asam-784001.
4. The Occupier/owner,Rupam Petroleum Company,Dadhara,P.O Tezpur -784001-Dealer Indian Oil Corporaton Petro products
5. Sri Himanta Biswa Sharma, Hon’ble Minister of Finance etc. Government of Assam,Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
6. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam Dispur,Guwahati-781006
7. The Joint Director of Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, O/o The Deputy Commissioner,Tezpur-784001

3. On being received prayer from the opposite party No.1 above and upon hearing both sides opposite party No.1, 3 and 7 were struck off vide orders dated 08-06-2017.Now this case is proceeded against –

1. Indian Oil AOD SO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Bhavan,Noonmati,Sector-III,Guwahati,Assam,-781020
2. The Occupier/owner,Rupam Petroleum Company,Dadhara,P.O Tezpur -784001-Dealer Indian Oil Corporaton Petro products
3. Sri Himanta Biswa Sharma, Hon’ble Minister of Finance etc. Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
4. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam Dispur,Guwahati-781006

4. However all the opposite parties impleaded in the original plaint have filed their respective’s written version. But in view of order dated 08-06-17, we need not consider the written version of opp. parties No.1, 3 & 7.

5. According to present opposite party No.1 the instant complaint is not a consumer dispute and this Forum at Tezpur has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute not falling within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable for the Bank’s inability to provide POS (Point of Sale)machine. The government of India has simply made an appeal to the people of India through media, circulars and through other devices of the government for maintaining cashless transaction.That inasmuch as no specific date is fixed or time is bound by the government of India or no Act/Law is enacted/brought for implementation of cashless transaction by fixing swiping machines at or in the business/commercial establishment hence, the instant complaint can’t be decided by any Court/Forum/Tribunal without enacting any specific Law/Act.
6. The other opposite parties taking the same pleas as that of the opposite party No.1 have also contended that the petrol pumps were allowed to carry on business with cash during that period.That swipe machine are supplied by the banks as per requirement of the commercial institutions. That non-availability of swipe machine does not implies deficiencies in the service especially in the petrol pump.
7. Denying deficiency of any sort the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. Complainant No.2 Sri Ananta Goswami tendered his evidence as sole witness for the Complainants through affidavit exhibiting several documents thereunder. On the other hand, only opposite party No.2 came forward to adduce evidence of its Manager Mr Ashim Choudhury on affidavit. The witnesses faced cross-examination.
9. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence available on record including the written argument filed by the parties. The following points are drawn up for determination of the dispute.

Points for Determination

1. Whether there was deficiency in service as alleged ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

           DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION

10. The word “Deficiency” has been defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. As per definition, “deficiency” means –

“Any fault, imperfection,shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”

11. On the other hand, word “Service” has been defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.As per definition “Service”means-

“Service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking,financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both housing construction entertainment,amusement or the purveying of news or other information,but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

12. Evidently, Complainant have not disputed the price,quality and quantity of Petrol purchased on 07-01-2017 from the opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company. Rather, the Complainant No.2 Sri Ananta Goswami as witness admitted in his cross-examination,that “The price of Petrol, delivery and quality is  not disputed”.The only dispute herein is the mode of payment”.
13. On the night of 8^th November,2016 the hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi announced demonetization of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- notes with effect from midnight. To promote digital payments post demonetization, the Goveernment of India announced slew of measures to incentivize cashless payments. Complainant at Page 2 of the complaint stated –“That the complainants were eagerly waiting to derive benefits and/or advantages through the Government of India owned public sector undertakings- commercial ventures more particularly those gigantic companies dealing in petro products and showing through various publicity campaigns how much and how far they are public and public oriented and dedicated to the public and results to be enjoyed and/or derived from this demonetization by switching over to swipe machine”
14. Being attracted by the announcement made by the government, Complainant at the time of purchasing Petrol from Rupam Petroleum Company on 07-01-2017 wanted to pay the price by using Swipe Machine. But the opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company failed to provide Swipe Machine.
15. Ld. Advocate Sri Ananta Goswami who is also the Complainant No.2 forwarding argument at para 7 of the written argument stated that “the opposite parties miserably failed to focus their proactive role towards transaction – digital push and their half hearted approach made the policy ineffective even after expiry of two months period from the date of announcement,8^th November,2016. This particular complaint is an effort on the part of the complainants how a policy called Digital Push towards achievement of e-governance and good governance could be frustrated because of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the opposite parties. The consumers were harassed and made to suffer because of this attitude.

Subsequently on the petition moved by the opposite party No.1 the learned Fora, after hearing was pleased to pass order and absolved the opposite parties No.1,3 and 7 from the proceedings vide order dated 08-06-2017”.

16. According to the opposite party to have Swipe machine to implement the process of Cashless transaction the opposite party applied to the Allahabad Bank in the month of November,2016, but the Bank failed to provide the same. During cross-examination D.W.1, Sri Ashim Choudhury stated –“Ultimately our Swipe machine was installed by the State Bank of India Mission Chariali Branch as Allahabad Bank failed to supply the same to our establishment”.
17. Ext-A is a letter issued by the Allahabad Bank on 17-02-17. Ext-A demonstrates that till 17-02-17 the Bank was not in a position to supply Swipe machine. Sri P.C Sarmah, learned advocate appearing for the Rupam Petroleum Company at para 9 of his written argument submitted that-“although the Govt. of India has made an appeal to the people of India for using cashless transaction in all

respects, but the same is not fully executed till this date. In this respect neither the Central Govt.nor the State Govt. has enacted any new law nor amended any existing law. Hence, no legal action can be taken against any person whether juristic or individual on the basis of an appeal to the people by the Government machinery”.

18. Evidently till date, no law has been enacted in the matter of Cashless transaction. Announcement of Cashless transaction benefits or incentives etc., are still in the form of policy only. To get the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground of deficiency in service, the claim must fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Act,reproduced hereinbefore.
19. The conduct of the opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company shows that they have made sincere effort to introduce Cashless transaction by procuring Swipe machine from the Bank. As the Bank failed to provide Swipe machine the opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company was not in a position to go for Cashless transaction. Admittedly, Allahabad Bank has not been made party to the complaint. It is worthwhile to mention here that the opposite party Rupam Petroleum Company in its written version and evidence of D.W.1 stated that “One Paytm has been there in its business establishment since the 1^st week of December 2016, but a few numbers of customers have only been using Paytm.”Complainants have neither disputed such claim by filing counter nor denied the same, while tendering evidence through C.W.1. Paytm is also a digital payments platform. By using Paytm also, one can make payment instantly by using Debit/Credit Card or Net Banking.
20. Under such circumstances we have found no room to accept the claim of the Complainant that on 07-01-2017, while purchasing fuel from the opposite party Rupam Petroleum, they were not provided to make digital payment.
21. Having regard to the discussion made above in its entirety,we are constrained to decide the Point No.(i) in the negative. Resultantly, Point No.(ii) is also decided in the negative.

       O R D E R

            Consequently the complaint stands dismissed.

Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 20th day of April, 2018.

Dictated and corrected by:                                             Pronounced and delivered

             ( A.Devee)

President                                                                              (A. DEVEE)

District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur                                                                President

Tezpur                                                              District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum                                                                                                            Sonitpur,Tezpur

We  agree:-       (P.DAS)      (SMT.S.BORA)                                                      

                              Member            Member