BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.159 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 14.05.2019

      Date of Decision: 10.11.2022

Mohan Katara, son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of House No.75, Jalandhar Vihar, Waryana, Distt. Jalandhar-144013.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Union Bank of India, Basti Mithu, Near Jammu Hospital,        Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

2.       Hari Om Indane, 32/456, Basti Bawa Khel, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar.

3.       Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indana Area Office, Bye Pass,          Suchi Pind, Jalandhar-144009.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Vivek Kapoor, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                      Sh. Anuj Bhalla, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

                   Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a consumer of Indane Gas vide consumer No.7505325877, with the OP No.2 since the year 2009. The complainant linked his Aadhar Card No.5392 0636 8704 with his Bank Account No.669102010005452 with Union Bank of India, Basti Mithu, Near Jammu Hospital, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. The complainant booked Gas Cylinders on 25.02.2019 vide Invoice No.5-100008435824 and on 16.03.2019 vide invoice No.5-100010945615 and on 15.04.2019 vide invoice No.5-100020429526. The complainant was supplied the Gas Cylinders of the above said invoices, but the subsidy of the same was not credited in the bank account of the complainant, whereas the complainant received subsidy in his account previously, thus the OPs are adopting unfair trade practice and are negligent in service. The complainant requested the OPs No.1 and 2 for the grant of the subsidy but they kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the subsidy to the complainant and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to credit the subsidy of Gas cylinder in the bank account of the complainant alongwith arrears and the interest, compensation for loss of reputation, mental harass, pain, agony suffered by the complainant on account of gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Further, OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 did not appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed out rightly because the complaint is totally vague, imaginary, hypothetical and ambiguous. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the complainant is stopped by his own act, conducts, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the OP No.1, this is nothing but the misuse of the process of law, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable under the law. The dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestly outside preview of the act. The present complainant is wholly misconceived, groundless, unsustainable and untenable. Thus, liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is false, frivolous, misleading and complainant has also concealed the material facts from this Commission and has wrongly pleaded that the OP No.1 in the present case. On the request of the complainant the bank account of Union Bank of India account No.669102010005452 is already linked with Aadhar Card of the complainant. So, there is no negligence on the part of answering OP so the said case is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost for being made unnecessary party to the said case. On merits, the factum with regard to link the aadhar number of the complainant with the bank account No.669102010005452 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that as per record whenever subsidy is being triggered in the account of the complainant, the same is failing as Aadhar Card Number of the complainant is not mapped to the account number. On some occasions while on other occasions, it is failing with the remarks that Aadhar Card is not enacted. It was also replied in the complaint that for any well fair scheme for taking benefit of subsidy, linking of Aadhar Card number is pre-requisite. The complaint was got dismissed by the complainant on 01.04.2019. It is further averred that the complainant is stopped to file the present complaint as earlier his complaint was got dismissed on 01.04.2019 and this complaint has been filed in May, 2019. The complainant is unnecessarily harassing the answering OP. On merits, it is submitted that subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 15.04.2019 has already been credited on 07.06.2019. The subsidy against cylinders delivered on 25.02.2019 and 16.03.2019 are under process and the complainant could not linked the Aadhar Card Number and could not complete the formalities at the relevant period and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 and OP No.3 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has filed the present case as he did not get the subsidy, of the gas cylinder, credited in his bank account. He has alleged that he got booked three gas cylinders on different dates i.e. on 25.02.2019 vide Invoice No.5-100008435824, on 16.03.2019 vide invoice No.5-100010945615 and on 15.04.2019 vide invoice No.5-100020429526. These invoices have been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-3. He has also proved that he is a consumer of Indane Gas vide Consumer No.7505325877 and he has proved his passbook Ex.C-1. He has also proved his Aadhar Card Ex.C-2. He has admitted that he received subsidy in his account previously. He has also proved on record passbook of bank Ex.C-4. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that he spent Rs.435/- for gas cylinder and on the invoice dated 15.04.2019, it has been mentioned that subsidy Rs.234.93 will be transferred to bank account. He spent Rs.435/- each for gas cylinder on 25.02.2019 and 16.03.2019, but there is no reference of any subsidy. The complainant has admitted that earlier the subsidy was credited in his account. This fact has also been admitted by the OP No.3. The OP No.3 has alleged that since his Aadhar Card was not mapped to the account number of the complainant, the subsidy could not be credited in the account of the complainant. He has submitted that whenever subsidy was being triggered in his account, it is failing with the remarks that Aadhar Card number is not enacted. It has further been submitted that the subsidy for the cylinder delivered on 15.04.2019 has already been credited on 07.06.2019. This fact has not been denied by the complainant also. It has been alleged in the written statement by the OP No.3 that the subsidy for cylinders delivered on 25.02.2019 and 16.02.2019 are under process, meaning thereby that the subsidy for two invoices was not credited in the account of the complainant. The only ground is that the Aadhar Card of the complainant is not mapped to the account number, but this contention is not tenable. Perusal of Ex.OP1/1 shows that the OP No.1/Union Bank of India has given the certificate that the Aadhar Card of the complainant is linked with his account number 669102010005452 and the customer ID has also been given. This fact has been mentioned in their written statement also. The detail of Aadhar Card number and Aadhar Card has been given by the OP No.1 in Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3. The OP No.3 has produced on record the document Ex.O3/2, vide which the earlier complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed for want of prosecution on 01.04.2019, which was filed in the year 2018. So, this order does not effect the facts of the present case as the earlier complaint was filed in the year 2018 and now the present complaint is regarding the gas cylinders booked in the year 2019.

8.                From the above said discussion, it is proved that the subsidy for the two invoices has not been credited despite the fact that the Aadhar Card of the complainant is linked to his account number. Though, it has been alleged that the same is under process, but there is delay in the same without any reason. The OP No.2 is the agency and is exparte. The OP No.2 is under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited/OP No.3 and therefore, they are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by them. OP No.1 is the bank and there are no allegations against the OP No.1 regarding any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the complaint qua OP No.1 is dismissed.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to credit the subsidy of the gas cylinders for the invoices i.e. Invoice No.5-100008435824 dated 25.02.2019 and invoice No.5-100010945615 dated 16.03.2019 in the bank account of the complainant. Further, OPs No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.4000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

10.11.2022         Member                          Member           President