26 Apr 2023


First Appeal No. A/286/2019
( Date of Filing : 28 Mar 2019 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2019 in Case No. 166/2018 of District Mahendragarh)
Dated : 26 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement



                                                       First Appeal No.286 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 27.03.2019

                                                          Date of final hearing: 17.04.2023

                                                     Date of pronouncement: 26.04.2023


Saheed Lekhram Gas Agency, Satnali Chowk, Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh, Haryana through proprietor.



  1. Jugal Kishore Aged 66 years S/o Sh. Panna Lal, Caste Mahajan, Resident of Village Dongra Ahir, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh.
  2. The Mahendergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Branch Dongra Ahir, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh through its Manager.


CORAM:    Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member


Present:-    Sh. Shashikant Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Sh. Anoop Kumar Yadav, counsel for respondent No. 1

None for respondent No.2.




          In this appeal filed by appellant/OP No.1; challenge has been invited to the legality of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahendergarh at Narnaul (In short “District Commission”) vide which complaint case No.166 of 2018 filed by complainant-Jugal Kishore has been partly allowed.

2.      Complainant has asserted in his compliant that he holds domestic gas connection No. 608213 issued by OP No.1- Gas Agency. He was receiving amount of subsidy in his Bank Account No. 3339006230 with PNB Branch Office, Dongra Ahir. Later on, he moved application and submitted required documents including form and requested OP No.1/appellant to transfer subsidy amount in another account No.001334007100142 with The Mahendergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Office Dongra Ahir. Accordingly, OPs transferred subsidy amount in said account up to 24.11.2017. After that, no subsidy amount was transferred in his Account by OP No.1. It is alleged by complainant that he had taken 8 refilled gas cylinders from OP No.1 till filing of complaint, but no subsidy amount of these cylinders was transferred in his account. He visited official of OP No.1 and enquired. After checking record and after 4-5 days; official of OP No.1 told him that entire subsidy amount is transferring from their site to the account of complainant and status report regarding consumer No.608213 was provided. It was told by OP No.1 that official of OP No.2- Bank is transferring subsidy amount in Bank Account of another person, so, the fault lies with official of OP No.2-Bank. Upon this, complainant visited office of OP No.2-Bank and requested to look into the matter, but officials refused to listen his genuine request. It was not disclosed in which account subsidy amount of complainant was being transferred. On these sets of facts, by asserting that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, he filed complaint.

3.      Upon notice, OP No. 1/appellant in its defence has asserted that complainant was receiving subsidy amount earlier in his Bank account No.3339006230 with PNB Branch Dongra Ahir- OP No.2. Later on, complainant submitted application along with prescribed form in which it was written that his subsidy amount now be transferred in another account No.001334007100142 in Mahendergarh Central Coop Bank, Dongra Ahir and the same was deposited/transferred by OP No.1 regularly up to 24.11.2017. It is pleaded that OP No.1- Gas Agency is regularly depositing the subsidy amount, if it is not deposited then it is the negligence on the part of OP No.2-Bank as OP No.2- Bank is crediting the subsidy amount in other account. Proof of sending subsidy amount was also provided to complainant. It is asserted that there is no fault on the part of Gas Agency-OP No.1. It is further pleaded that there are some rules prescribed by the Govt. to get subsidy amount from the gas agencies out of which one is to link up Aadhaar Card with Bank Account and secondly, is that subsidy amount paid directly by Govt. There is no role of gas agency and their staff and if subsidy amount is lapsed, even then subsidy amount is sent back to the Govt. On these pleas, OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No. 2-Bank in its separate written statement has admitted that complainant is having Bank Account No.001334007100142 with it. Amount of Rs.247.26 had already been deposited in the account of the complainant on 24.11.2017 and after that again on 04.01.2018. The Gas Agency is transferring subsidy amount through RTGS or online so, Bank has no role with transferring of subsidy amount. OP No.2-Bank never deposited subsidy amount in the account of consumers rather head office of the Gas Agency transferred the amount directly in the account of consumers which are linked with Aadhaar Card.

5.      Complainant, as well as, OPs led their respective evidence before learned District Commission. After subjectively analyzing the same learned District Commission, vide order dated 28.02.219 has partly allowed the complaint and directed OP No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each i.e. total Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses within a period of 30 days.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      A communication was sent by Branch Manager, The Mahendragarh Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Branch Office Dongra Ahir, Mahendragarh, to this Commission mentioning that The Mahendragarh Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. had paid Rs.5,000/- to complainant on 30.07.2019. In this regard, receipt of the complainant was also appended.

8.      learned counsel for the appellant contended that order of paying Rs.5,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses is grossly illegal in view of the finding recorded by learned District Commission that subsidy amount after 24.11.2017 was being deposited in another account No. 001334007101207 of complainant so maintained with OP No.2-Bank of complainant. It is urged that even this account of complainant is linked with aadhar card and the case set up by complainant that no subsidy amount after 24.11.2017 was transferred in his account stood falsified.

9.      On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-complainant has urged that impugned order dated 28.02.2019 is legally justified, well-reasoned and factually correct thereby warranting no interference.

10.    In this complaint, on 26.02.2019 Ashok Kumar Branch Manager of The Mahendragarh Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Branch Office Dongra Ahir appeared before learned District Commission and noted account No. 001334007101207. He suffered statement in this regard and stated that he will provide details within two hours. On same day, Satish Kumar working as computer operator with appellant herein suffered statement that complainant’s aadhar card is linked with account No. 001334007101207 and in this account subsidy amount belonging to complainant is being regularly sent.

11.    The finding recorded in Para No. 9 of impugned order is expressly to the effect that: this account (001334007101207) was opened by complainant on 06.05.2016, but it was not in operation since its opening.  It is also observed that: only 10-11 entries regarding subsidy amount have been made in this account after 11.01.2018 to 08.01.2019. In opinion of this Commission, 10-12 entries regarding subsidy would obviously imply that this account was operational, live and active. These facts would make it clear that amount of subsidy, after 24.11.2017, had been transferred in bank account of complainant bearing No. 001334007101207 maintained with OP No.2-Bank.  These attending facts and circumstance, will not entitle the complainant to urge that there was deficiency in service, or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. May be, he visited the office of OP No. 1 & 2, still, mere visits will also not constitute deficiency in service of OPs, even remotely despite that at that relevant time of complainant’s visits; officials of OP No. 1 & 2 were not in a position to apprise and satisfy him, of true facts. Instead, some vigilance was required from complainant also. He should have constantly look into his bank account (001334007101207) which as per statement dated 26.09.2019 of Satish Kumar who is working with appellant herein, was linked up with his (complainant’s) aadhar card, in order to check for himself, as to whether that bank account is credited with subsidy amount or not?  At least, this much of overt act was expected from complainant, particularly when his account No. 001334007101207 was also kept with OP No. 2-Bank, and where his account No. 001334007100142 was being maintained. Curiously enough, no steps in this regard have been taken by complainant and he (complainant) has miserably failed in that arena. He should have pleaded in his complaint also, that there is another account No. 001334007101207 maintained by him with OP No. 2-Bank. Complaint was filed on 02.11.2018 and this account, as per District Commission’s order (Para No.9) was opened way back on 06.05.2016. In firm opinion of this Commission; all these facts which have important bearing on the veracity of allegations contained in complaint were required to be taken note off by learned District Commission. Having not meticulously analyzed the controversy on these facts/angles; the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 would warrant interference by this Commission. Ex-facie, fault lies with the complainant himself as he did not adhere to check his account No. 001334007101207 maintained with OP No. 2 which was linked up with his aadhar card and in this account subsidy amount was being credited. Consequently, this appeal deserves acceptance, it is allowed on given facts and evidence. Impugned Order dated 28.02.2019 passed by learned District Commission is legally not sustainable. It is set-aside. As a flowing consequence; complaint filed by Jugal Kishore-complainant is dismissed.

12.    Complainant-Jugal Kishore is directed to refund, the amount received by him from any of the OPs, on the force of impugned order dated 28.02.2019, which has now been set aside. Two months’ time from the date of receipt of this order, is given to complainant to comply with this direction and to refund the amount, else, any aggrieved parties to this lis (any of two opposite parties) who has already complied with directions contained in District Commission’s order, would be at liberty to adopt proper legal recourse for execution of direction of this order.

13.    Statutory amount of Rs.2,500/- deposited along with appeal by the appellant be refunded to appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of further appeal/revision, if any.

14.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

15.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.      File be consigned to record room.


Date of pronouncement: 26th April, 2023




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.