Orissa

Cuttak

CC/104/2023

Iswar Chandra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Water Corporation Of Odisha(WATCO) - Opp.Party(s)

S Sahoo & associates

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.104/2023

 

1.     Iswar Chandra Sahoo,

S/o: Late Kailash Chandra Sahoo,

Permanent resident of Plot No.3C/246,

Sector-9,C.D.A.Markat Nagar,

Cuttack-753014.

 

2.     Dr. Ipsita Sahoo,

D/o: Iswar Chandra Sahoo                                                           

resident of Plot No.3C/246,

Sector-9,C.D.A.Markat Nagar,

Cuttack-753014.                                                                       ... Complainants.

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Manager, Water Corporation of Odisha,

WATCO Sub-Division,

               At-Barabati,Cuttack,Odisha-753003.

 

2.       The Asst. General Manager(A.G.M),

State Bank of India,

Collectorate Compound,

P.O:Chandini Chowk,Dist:Cuttack,

                   Odisha-753002.

 

3.        The Commissioner,

Cuttack Municipal Corporation,

Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-753001.

 

4.       The Chief Executive Officer,

Bharat Interface for Money-Unified Payments

Interface (BHIM-UPI),

H.O:At: National Payments Corporation of India

1001A, B Wing,10^th Floor, The Capital,

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra(East),

                  Mumbai-400051.                                                                        ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:        Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing:    03.04.2023

Date of Order:  18.03.2024

 

For the complainant:           Ms. Sagarika Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1       :           Mr. P.K.Bhuyan,Adv & Associates.

For the O.P no.2       :           Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.3       :           Mr. J.R.Jena,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.4       :           Mr. S.Biswal,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                           

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he is a senior citizen and was having water connection to his house bearing Consumer Number CUT/67/03/26880(Old Consumer number 6703076).  Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant with an intention to pay the water tax through online portal service as available in the Cuttack Municipal Corporation Website, had tried to deposit the same.  But each time though money was deducted from the SBI account of his daughter Ipsita, the transaction was shown to be failed.  After three such consecutive efforts, the complainant contacted the Municipal Corporation Help Desk, but no fruitful result was yielded.  Out of the three occasions by virtue of which the complainant had tried to deposit his water tax, the first two payments were made through YONO application of SBI and the third one was made through BHIM-UPI mode.  The complainant had made representations in this regard to the Municipal Corporation, S.B.I as well as the Water Tax Department.  The complainant was advised by O.P no.1 that the amount so paid by him to the tune of Rs.4239/- towards the water tax through online portal was to be adjusted in the next payment as due from him.  The complainant was thus directed to make payment of Rs.1440/- towards the annual payment of water tax as due from him by 29.3.2021 and accordingly he had made such payment.  Subsequently, the complainant was informed that the amount that which was to be adjusted has not been done and rather there was a due of Rs.150/- from him towards the water tax.  The complainant was compelled to pay the said amount on 25.4.2022.  The complainant had made further representations to the Manager,WATCO on 28.4.2022 regarding the three online transactions as made by him earlier  but O.P no.1 had not taken any positive step towards refund of the said amount of Rs.4239/- to the complainant.  Again, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1000/- on 18.7.2022 towards his water tax dues.  O.P no.2 had assured the complainant that since because it was a failure in transaction, the amount deducted shall revert back to the account of the complainant.   But the said amount was never reverted back to the account of the complainant.  Having no other way out, ultimately the complainant has knocked the door of this Commission by filing a petition wherein he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Higher Courts, which are as follows:

1. In the case of K.G. Sathyanarayan Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, reported in 3 (2006) CPJ 8 NC it is observed that it is the duty of the service provider to maintain adequate standards of the service i.e. provided by such entity.  The same may be done by the service provider itself or by any other subordinate entity created for regulation and function of a particular provision of service.  Thereby the cost of the same shall be borne off by such service provider and the quality or standards of such services are to maintained by the service provider.
2. In the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Gurnam Singh, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 775 it was observed that deficiency of service also emanates from failure to act diligently.
3. In the case of Mukesh Praveen Chandra Shah Vs Managing Director, reported in (1993) 1 CPR 515(Guj), it was observed that non-refund of deposit upon failure to provide the acclaimed services; even after repeated request of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, the complainant has claimed refund of Rs.4239/- that which was illegally deducted by all the O.Ps and who are arrayed in this case alleging that all of them are jointly and severally liable for such latches and has further claimed interest thereon @ 18% per annum with effect from 24.4.2021 till the total amount is quantified.  The complainant has claimed compensation from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in their service and also for their unfair trade practice. The complainant has further claimed compensation from the O.Ps of another sum of Rs.50,000/- for his mental agony and harassment. He has also claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the O.Ps towards his litigation expenses and has prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       All the O.Ps have contested this case but each of them has filed his separate written version. 

          As per the written version of O.P no.1 that the claim of the complainant to have paid a sum of Rs.4239/- online was never received by this O.P.  The claim as made by the complainant that the payment of water tax through e.mail portal had failed was due to technical defect and thus, the dispute is in-between the O.Ps no.2 & 4 but O.P no.1 is in no way liable for such transaction if any.  The complainant had been paying the water tax as and when due and O.P no.1 is in no ay concerned about the online payment of Rs.4239/- by the complainant if has been made.  Thus, it is prayed through the written version of O.P no.1 to dismiss the complaint petition which is devoid of any merit.

          The O.P no.2 has claimed that there is no case made out against him for which the complaint petition is liable to be rejected with cost.  According to O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable since because the transaction was made from the account of Miss Ipsita Sahoo who is the daughter of the complainant and she is not a party here in this case.  The transaction as made being successful, O.P no.2 cannot be said to be the necessary party to this case.  The failure of transaction as alleged is not true since when the money was deducted from the account.  Thus, in toto it is the contention of O.P no.2 is that O.P no.2 is in no way liable and rather is an unnecessary party to this case which is liable to be dismissed.

          The O.P no.2 alongwith his written version has filed copies of account statements of the account belonging to Miss Ipsita Sahu.

          O.P no.3 through it’s written version has also stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and the same is liable to be dismissed.  According to O.P no.3, they had never floated any such online portal for payment of water tax and rather the Govt. in Housing & Urban /Development Department had developed and maintained a Website i.e. www.ulbodisha.gov.in for providing different citizen services to the public in general which are like payment of holding tax, issuance of trade license, issuance of birth and death certificates etc.  O.P no.3 has stated in it’s written version that payment of water tax service was related to the Water Corporation of Odisha through the said Website.  Thus, according to O.P no.3, the payment of water tax to the WATCO if made by the complainant and if the complainant had approached the WATCO authorities for refund of his amount, the O.P no.3 has no role to play therein.  According to O.P no.3, the said website is developed and maintained by the Govt. of Odisha in Housing & Urban Development Department which is the Administrative Department of Cuttack Municipal Corporation.  But O.P no.3 is in no way concerned about the transaction as alleged towards the water tax payment by the complainant to WATCO.  Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P no.3 through it’s written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

          O.P no.4 through it’s written version has stated that the complainant has not availed any product or service from O.P no.4.  As per the complaint petition filed by the complainant, he had initiated two transactions for payment of the utility bills through mobile application of O.P no.2 i.e.  the YONO application and accordingly, the amount was deducted from his account which was with the State Bank of India.  After receiving notice from this Commission, OP no.4 has investigated about such UPI transaction which was based on the unique transaction number given by the complainant with the bank reference no.111420123173 and it came to the knowledge of OP no.4 that the complainant had used UPI application of Amazon Pay (India) Pvt. Ltd. and not the BHIM UPI application.  Thus, according to O.P no.4, the complainant has neither any privy contract with O.P no.4 nor had the complainant been a consumer of O.P no.4.  The O.P no.4 also relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Higher Forums which are as follows:

i.          In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Mr. Lalit Wadhwa and Anr. MIPR 2007(3) 192, 2007(35) PTC 377 Del wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that “A reading of the plaint shows that no clear or specific averment has been made against Defendant No.1 about his role in the alleged infringement of the Plaintiffs patent.  In my view, Defendant No.1 is neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit and consequently he is liable to be deleted from the array of Defendants.”

ii.         In the case of Mrs. Bhavna A, Patel & Anr. Vs. Mr. Krishnamurthy Venkataraman wherein it is held observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that “it is settled law that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively”.

iii.       In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 relied on the decisions of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66 and Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors, (2002) 9 SCC 424 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainants.  If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complaint”.

4. In the case of Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C) wherein the Hon’ble National C.D.R.Commission held that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant.

Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.P no.4 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against O.P no.4.

          O.P no.4 has also filed evidence affidavit through one Kunal Kalawatia, the Chief of Products of National Payments Corporation of India, but the contents of the evidence affidavit of the said Kunal Kalawatia when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made by the O.P no.4 through it’s written version.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of all the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written versions, written notes of submission from the side of complainant and O.Ps no.2 & 3, evidence affidavit as filed by O.P no.4 as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly the complainant is a consumer of WATCO and has been regularly paying the water taxes as and when those were due.  As per Annexure-1 series, which are copies of the online payments showing the complainant to have paid on 24.4.2021 and 25.4.2021 the water taxes to the WATCO through bank reference number 11142023173.  Annexure-2 reflects the amount to have ben paid on 24.4.2021 and on 25.4.2021 each time for an amount of Rs.1413/-.   Annexure-3 is the copy of letter written by the complainant to the AGM, SBI seeking refund of the money to the tune of Rs.4239/-.  As per Annexure-4, the SBI admits about the debit of money @ Rs.1413/- on 24.4.21 & 25.4.21 on three occasions from the Account number 32619387852 which belongs to one Ipsita Sahu and as made out from the said letter the said transactions were successful on each of the three such occasions.   It is not in dispute that Miss. Ipsita Sahu is the daughter of the complainant.  Annexure-2 is the letter written by the complainant addressed to the Manager,WATCO,Barabati Sub-Division,Cuttack seeking refund of the money of Rs.4239/-. O.P no.1 has not taken any plea about non-receipt of such letter dated 28.4.2022 as claimed by the complainant to have been sent to the O.P no.3.  The claim of O.P no.4 that the complainant is not a consumer of O.P no.4 in any manner as he has not obtained any product or service from O.P no.4 and that the complainant had used UPI application like YONO application or Amazon Pay Application which was ascertained from enquiry.  Such statement of O.P no.4 has not been substantiated or supported in any manner by any documentary evidence by O.P no.4.  The claim of O.P no.3 that the online portal was never given by them and rather it was given by the Govt. of Odisha, Housing & Urban Development Department also does not hold good when O.P no.3 has admitted in it’s written version that the Govt. of Odisha, Housing & Urban Development Department is the Administrative Department of O.P no.3.

After going through such facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission notices that the O.Ps are all hand in gloves and are playing truant or facebee with the complainant who is a senior citizen and has been running from pillar to post in order to get refund of the excess amount of money as paid by him to the tune of Rs.4239/- towards his water tax consumption.  As per the copies of documents available, it goes to show that infact, the complainant was never a defaulter and rather was paying regularly the water taxes to the WATCO whenever the same was due from him.  The Website portal as available online during the Covid-19 pandemic period was availed by the complainant in order to enable him to pay his water tax to the WATCO without physically going to the office of O.P no.1.  When it is already settled that infact the complainant has paid an excess amount of water tax to the tune of Rs.4239/-, the same should have been refunded to him immediately by the O.Ps without trying to make him run.   But each of the O.Ps have tried to disembark the responsibility by pointing out the finger to the other.  As observed in the case of Mukesh Praveen Chandra Shah Vrs. Managing Director, reported in (1993) CPR 515(Guj), non-refund of deposit upon & failure to provide the acclaimed services; even after repeated requests of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice.  Thus, this Commission finds the O.Ps are definitely deficient in their service by not refunding the excess amount of money as paid by the complainant and have to the contrary, tried to shirk the responsibility. Thus, they have also practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

 

ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund Rs.4239/- to the complainant with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from dated  24.4.2021 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for their deficiency of service and for unfair trade practice by them and further to pay another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation  for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant as well as another sum of Rs.30,000/- to meet the litigation expenses of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                 Order pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th day of March,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                   

                                                                                      

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member

 

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                 .

 

                                                                                                                        .