IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 4 of 2018
Sri Haladhar Das, aged about 82 years
Son of Late Gopinath Das of L.I.C Colony,
P.O- Keonjhargarh, P.S-Town
Dist-Keonjhar, 758001……………………………………...…..… Complainant
Versus
1.The Dist Manager,
O.S.C.S.C Ltd keonjhar, At/Po-Keonjhargarh
Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha-758001.
2. The Collector & Dist. Magistrate, Keonjhar
At/Po-Keonjhargarh ,Dist-Keonjhar,Odisha-758001
3. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, Keonjhar Main Branch, Keonjhar,
At/Po-Keonjhargarh ,Dist-Keonjhar,
Odisha-758001
4. The Chief Manager
National payments corporation of India.
1001A,The Capital,B-Wing,10th Floor, Bandra kurla Complex,
Bandra(East),Mumbai-400051…………………….……………………………………..Opp.Parties
Present:
Smt. B.Giri, President (I/C)
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (Member)
Advocate for complainant- Sri P.Nath & Associates
Advocate for O.P-1 – Muralidhar Patra
Advocate for O.P-2 - S.K Sahu(Government Pleader)
Advocate for O.P-3- P.K Mishra & Associates
Advocate for OP-4 - Authorised Person
Date of hearing - 06.11.2020 Date of Order- 30.12.2020
Sri B.B Das (Member)
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he is a LPG(HP Gas) consumer since 2002 having Consumer No -666018 and ID No-29110899300053769 under District Manager,OSCSC Ltd, Keonjhar (OP No-1).The OP No-2 is the administrative higher authority of OP No-1 and OP No-3 is facilitating banking service to transfer LPG subsidy to the account of consumers. The positive case complainant is that the LPG subsidy has not been credited to his SB A/C-11382684970 of State Bank Of India , Keonjhar main Branch since 22.11.2016 though same has been transferred to the account of one Sasmita Pradhan who is no way related to him .The complainant submitted written complain before the OPs who assured to solve the problem. Believing the version of Ops, the complainant purchased the LPG (HP) on dt 09.01.2018 on payment of Rs.788.00 vide cash Memo No.1019312 but the subsidy amount of Rs.279.17/- again transferred to the account of Sasmita Pradhan causing him financial loss, mental agony and harassment . So the complainant prays before this forum to make payment of Rs.950.04 ( Subsidy amount ), Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc,Rs.40,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The OP No.-1 entered in appearance and filed his version to the effect that transfer of subsidy amount to LPG (HP Gas ) consumer is the act of NPCI of India through concerned Bank and this OP-1 has no role on this aspect.
The OP No.-2 has filed his version admitting the transfer of subsidy amount of complainant for last five times to the account of another person . This Opp. Party vehemently objected that he has no role to play in transfer of subsidy amount to the respective bank Accounts of the LPG Consumers, rather the transfer subsidy amount to different LPG consumer is the exclusive business of the NPCI of India through concerned Bank.
The OP No.-3 is also entered in appearance on dt.14.03.2018and filed his written version denying the allegations of complainant petition in this case. As per version of OP No 3,he is the Bank but not the dealer of LPG. He being the only custodian of the account holder, the complainant is to take proper steps before the appropriate authority for realization of subsidy amount of transfer to the account of another person.
The matter was heard in presence of both parties who argued the matter taking in to consideration their respective version. On perusal of record, it is found that the complainant is a consumer of LPG(HP Gas)Since the year-2002.It is also apparent that the subsidy amount has been released to the account of complainant till 20.8.2016.The subsequent transfer of subsidy amount to the account of one sasmita Pradhan may be an official error which can be rectified under due process and the complainant reserves right to take appropriate steps to realize the same before the competent authority who deals it. In the instant case, it is to be seen whether the complainant is a consumer or not as it relates to payment of subsidy amount. On the other hand, Op No- 4 submits that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as he is not availed financial service like subsidy under the Act.
See2(1)(d)140-clearly says when no service for hire involved under scheme for payment of subsidy then the complainant is not a consumer, hence he cannot claim any relief under the Act, the position of law clearly observed in “secy publicherla primary Agricultural Co-operative credit society ltd. .V. B. Narasimha Reddy, III(1999)CPJ 73(AP)”.
Under the above observation, in the peculiar circumstances of case and nature of allegations agitated by the complainant, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and as such, this forum/Commission declines to interfere into the matter.
However the petition filed by the complainant stands rejected with no cost.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 30th Dec ember 2020.
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( Smt B. Giri)
Member (I/C.,President) DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
(Sri B.B Das)
Member
DCDRC,Keonjhar
