Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/260/2013

G.Ashok Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.E.Muthu Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

G.L.Ramshankar

29 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 12.06.2013

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Reservation: 25.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Order: 29.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.260/2013

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

 Mr.G.Ashok Kumar, S/o.V.K.Gopal,

Residing at No.31, Natarajan Street,

Gandhi Road, Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042                                                                                     .. Complainant. 

                

                                                                //Verses//

 

1.M/s. S.E.Muthu Agencies,  Indane Star Distributors,

   No.D-6, 4^th Main Road,

   Vijaya Nagar, Velachery, Chennai 600 042.

 

2.Mr.V.K.Jayachandran, Executive Director (TN&P)

   Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division),

   Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139, Mahathma Gandhi Road,

   Numgambakkam High Road,

   Chennai -600 034.

 

3.Mr.S.Chandran, Deputy General Manager (LPG) &

   Public Information Officer, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation,

   Tamil Nadu State Office, No.139, Indian Oil Bhavan,

   Nungambakkam High Road,

  Chennai 600 034.                                                                        ..  Opposite parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                        : M/s.G.L.Ramshankar, Adv.,

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                       : Mr.P.Vasanth, Adv.,           

Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party         :Mr.P.S.Sivasubramaniam, Adv.,

 

            On perusal of both side records and after having heard the argument of the opposite parties and having treated the written argument of complainant as his oral argument we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to direct the 1^st opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.445/-collected from the complainant and to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and to pay a  sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and cost of this proceedings.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked and written argument filed. While so, on the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit filed but no document filed. Further on the side of 3^rd opposite party proof affidavit filed as his evidence, documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were filed and written argument filed.

            3. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant has booked a domestic gas cylinder in the 1^st opposite party Agency/distributor on December 2012 and the 1^st opposite party has delivered the cylinder on 15.12.2012.  The 1^st opposite party has collected double charges i.e. Rs.890/- instead of normal charge. The complainant sent a letter  to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to provide the list of what are the rules and regulations should follow by the OPG Dealers/Suppliers/Distributor while providing the domestic gas to the consumers, but no reply was given by them.  Hence this complaint is filed.

4.Written version of the 1^st opposite party in brief:-

It is denied that the 1^st opposite party has demanded double charges of Rs.890/- instead of normal charges for delivering of cylinder dated 15.12.2012.  The complainant has confused between the original and revised government orders passed time and then by the Central Government regulating the subsidy prices of the gas cylinders. On 13.09.2012 the Central government issued circular to restrict the supply of subsidized LPG cylinders to each consumer to 6 cylinders per annum and to 3 cylinders for the balance part of the current financial years. Subsequently revised order dated 17.01.2013 the government had decided to enhance the supply of subsidized LPG cylinders to 9 cylinders per annum from the year 2013-2014 and from 3 cylinders to 5 cylinders for the balance part of current financial year. Further by circular No.939 dated 17.01.2012 it was made it clear the non-subsidized price would apply to the supplied of over and above the enhanced cap of 5 cylinders for the current fiscal year. In view of the above prescribed rules relating to subsidized prices, the complainant is entitled to subsidized rates for the supply of a maximum of 6 cylinders under order dated 13.09.2012 and a maximum of 9 cylinders under order dated 17.01.2013.  Accordingly, as can be seen from the Customer History Card, the complainant has been charged Rs.386/- only at subsidized prices for the maximum of 6 cylinders. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

 

5. Written version of the 3^rd opposite party in brief:-

This opposite party submits that Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (PP Section) in its Circular No.P-20012/7/09/PP (Vol.I) dated 13.09.2012, restricting the supply of LPG cylinders to each consumer to 6 cylinders (14.2kg) per annum.  The number of subsidized LPG cylinders is available to each consumer in the remaining part of current Financial year (13.09.2012-March 2013) will be 3 cylinders.  By virtue of this Government of India notification, each consumer is entitled to get only 3 cylinders at the subsidized rate for the remaining current financial year.  On verification of the complainant delivery statement, it was found that the 1^st opposite party delivered 3 cylinders on the subsidized rate between the remaining financial years of 2012 t 2013.

6. The complainant has received 3 cylinders at the subsidized rate on 17.09.2012, 02.11.2012 and 24.11.2012. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get LPG cylinder at the subsidized rate for the remaining supply of cylinders in between December 2012 – March 2013. Therefore the 1^st opposite party has collected sum of Rs.890/- which is the cost of non-subsidized cylinder.  It is incorrect to say that the 1^st opposite party has collected double charges.

7. That the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (PP Section) in its circular No.P20012/22/2012-PP dated 17.01.2013, revised the annual cap on the subsidized domestic LPG cylinder from 3 to 5 for the period from 14.09.2012 to 31.03.2013 and form 6 to 9 cylinders annually w.e.f.01.04.2013, subject to a condition that no refunds will be admissible on any LPG domestic cylinders already supplied to LPG consumers at the non-subsidized price, during the period from 14.09.2012 till date.  By virtue of this notification, the consumers are entitled to get 9 LPG cylinders per annum for 01.04.2013 on wards and 5 cylinders between 14.09.2013 to 31.03.2013 at the subsidized rate.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get 5 cylinder between above said period and further the complainant is barred from seeking refund of cost of non-subsidized LPG cylinder, by virtue of the said notification dated 17.01.2013.  Therefore it is incorrect to say that the complainant is entitled to get refund of cost of non-subsidized LPG cylinder which was supplied during 14.09.2013 to 17.01.2013. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

8.The points for consideration are:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

9. Point No.1:-

 

The complaint is not correct as that the 1^st opposite party supplied the gas cylinder on 15.12.2012 on double charges complainant seeking subsidy rate instead of normal charge of the cylinder on 15.12.2012. As per NCDRC, New Delhi, REVISION PETITON No.4894/2012 in between Choudhary Ashok Yadav //Vs// Rewari Central Co-op Bank & Anr. dated 08.02.2013 it is observed that the subsidy offered to be paid is not service as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim subsidy before this commission.

The Complainant submitted type set and in Page No.21, circular issued by the “Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (PP-Section) dated 17.01.2013 it is categorically stated revise annual cap on the subsidized domestic LPG cylinders from 3 to 5 for the period from 14.09.2012 to 31.03.2013 and from 6 to 9 annually w.e.f. 1.4.2013.  This will be subject to the condition that no refunds will be admissible on any LPG domestic cylinders already supplied to LPG consumers at the non-subsidized price during the period from 14.09.2012 till date”.

10. As per circular no refund will be admissible to the complainant for purchasing of gas cylinder dated 15.12.2012.  Hence we found that there is no cause of action in this case.  Therefore we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

11.Point Nos.2&3:-

We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed this complaint. Accordingly point Nos.2&3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 29^th day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                      R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1	15.12.2012	Receipt of gas cylinders	Xerox
Ex.A2	04.01.2013	Letter from the complainant to the Regional Manager, IOC with ack. card.	Xerox
Ex.A3	21.01.2013	Letter from 3rd op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A4	28.01.2013	Letter from the complainant to the Regional Manager, IOC, with ack. Card.	Xerox
Ex.A5	01.02.2014	Letter from 2nd op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A6	16.12.2012	Letter from complainant to the 3rd op with ack. Card.	Xerox
Ex.A7	19.02.2013	Letter from the 3rd op to the complainant with enclosure of order copy.	Xerox
Ex.A8	22.02.2013	Letter from the complainant to the 2nd and 3rd op with ack. Card.	Xerox
Ex.A9	04.03.2013	Letter from 3rd op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A10	09.03.2013	Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with ack. Card.	Xerox
Ex.A11	15.03.2013	Letter from the complainant to the 3rd op with ack. Card.	Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the 3^rd opposite party:-

Ex.B1	12.09.2012	Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas	Xerox
Ex.B2	17.01.2013	Internal letter of 3rd op	Xerox
Ex.B3	02.02.2014	Statement of 1st op	Xerox
Ex.B4	13.09.2012	Statement of 1st op	Xerox

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                      R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT