Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by Subramanya Bhat Deva S/o late D.Thimmappaiah resident of Maratikyathanahalli, Mysuru Taluk with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.51,870/- towards loss of earnest money, mental agony with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
2.       The opposite party No.1 is Manager – Bharti Airtel Company, Mysuru, opposite party No.2 – Manager, Sri Raghavendra Agencies, H.P.Gas Dealer, Mysuru and opposite party No.3 – Joint Director, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mysuru.  The complainant being consumer of H.P. Gas and his consumer I.D.No.618843.  The opposite party No.2 is the distributor of H.P. Gas to the complainant.  The complainant has linked his mobile number 8771751942 to the opposite party No.1 for transfer of gas subsidy to his S.B. account maintained at Canara Bank, Hinkal Branch, Mysuru.  The complainant has purchased gas cylinder from the opposite party No.2 since 26.05.2017 and nine times subsidy amount has been illegally transferred to the opposite party No.1 Airtel Payment Bank without his consent and knowledge. The opposite party No.1 has illegally retained the gas subsidy amount.  The complainant has approached the opposite party No.1 for transfer of gas subsidy amount to his account maintained at Canara Bank, but there is no response from them.  Hence, this complaint has been filed to transfer the gas subsidy amount of Rs.1,870/- illegally transferred to the opposite party No.1 account, transportation and convenience charges of Rs.5,000/-, compensation for physical and mental agony Rs.40,000/-, notice and miscellaneous charges of Rs.5,000/- in all claimed Rs.51,870/-.
3.       The opposite party No.1 appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the claim against it is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs since opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication service and operating basic telecommunication service in the State of Karnataka.  The opposite party No.1 denied the allegations that gas subsidy amount has been transferred to his account.  It is the case of opposite party No.1 that it is not either necessary or proper party to this complaint.  Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.  It is further case of opposite party No.1 that the complainant ought to have contacted the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., and sought for transfer of gas subsidy amount and without doing so he has filed this false case against this opposite party No.1.  This opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with the service between the complainant and M/s Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., On the amongst other grounds, opposite party No.1 asked to dismiss the complaint.
4.      The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 despite service of notice have proceeded exparte.
5.       The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced nine documents in support of his case.  On behalf of opposite party No.1 Siddaveer Chakki authorized signatory of opposite party No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced two documents in support of their case.
6.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant in addition to written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that his gas subsidy amount has been transferred to the account of opposite party No.1 and that amounts to unfair trade practice?
2.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :- In the negative;

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.         Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has not given consent to transfer his gas subsidy amount to the account of opposite party No.1.  The complainant produced document to show that he is a consumer of H.P. Gas bearing I.D.No.618843. The documents produced by the complainant further indicate that he has been using gas cylinder from opposite party No.2.  The document i.e. consumer information portal produced by the complainant reveals that subsidy amount of complainant has been transferred to the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd.,  The own document of complainant indicates that his subsidy amount has been transferred to the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., but not to the opposite party No.1 Bharti Airtel Company.  The opposite party No.1 in support of their case produced the company master data and according to this Airtel Payment Bank Ltd, was registered on 01.04.2010.  This document contained the date of registration of the company, authorized capital, paid up capital, name of the directors, registered address of the company etc.,  Another document shows that Bharti Airtel Ltd., was registered on 07.07.1995.  The registered address of opposite party No.1 and Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., is one and the same but date of registration of the company and directors are different.  Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., may be the sister concern of opposite party No.1. 
9.           The opposite party No.1 though has taken specific defence in the written version and affidavit evidence along with supportive document that it is not necessary or proper party to this complaint.  The complainant would be approached the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., for refund of the subsidy amount transferred to it illegally.  The complainant despite the defence of opposite party No.1 and documentary evidence e did not care to implead Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., and on the contrary, proceeded against Bharti Airtel Ltd., which is dealing in the telecommunication business.  The opposite party No.1 is no way concerned for transfer of subsidy amount of the complainant to the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., Therefore, the complaint against opposite party No.1 is liable to be dismissed.
10.          There is no allegations against the opposite party No.2 H.P.Gas Dealer that it has hand in gloves with opposite party No.1 for transfer of subsidy amount to Airtel Payment Bank Ltd.,  Opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with the alleged illegal transfer of subsidy amount.  The complainant has failed to file complaint against proper party i.e. the Airtel Payment Bank Ltd., or even did not care to implead it after specific defence taken by the opposite party No.1 along with both the companies particulars.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought in the complaint.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Subramanya Bhat Deva is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.