Complaint Case No. CC/14/22
 
1. Madan Lal
son of Om Parkash jain H.No.20204, Gali no.18, Parinda road, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar,Bathinda
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Punsup Gas service
distributor Bharat Gas through its manger, Ver colony, amrik singh road, Bathinda
2. Bharat Petroleum corporatio ltd
through its Territory manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE:  
 HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sham Lal Goyal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh.Sudhir Kumar Goyal OP No.1., Advocate
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.22 of 03-01-2014

Decided on 09-04-2014

Madan Lal aged about 55 years S/o Om Parkash Jain, H.No.20204, Gali No.18, Parinda Road, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Punsup Gas Service (Distributor Bharat Gas), Veer Colony, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

2.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., LPG (Bathinda), A-1 & A-2, PSIEC Growth Centre, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Territory Manager.

3.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., LPG Bharat Gas, Regd. Office: Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, through its Chairman.

.......Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sham Lal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sudhir Kumar Goyal, counsel for the opposite party

No.1.

Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 ex-parte.

 

ORDER

 

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 21.11.2013, he received one domestic LPG refill for Rs.1012/- (Rs.969.35/- base rate + Rs.42.65/- vat tax) from the opposite party No.1. The VAT tax of Rs.42.65/- charged on the amount of Rs.969.35/- is illegal and in-operative and subsequently further VAT tax charging on the subsidy amount for every refill by the distributor is also illegal and against the law and facts. As the subsidy amount of Rs.603.18/- is to be paid by the Central Government, thus as per law no VAT/Sales Tax (Including surcharge) can be levied on the subsidy amount, in this way the opposite parties should have charged the amount of Rs.985.46/- including VAT + Surcharge + Subsidy for one domestic LPG refill, from the consumers and should have charged VAT + Surcharge to the tune of Rs.16.11/- on the actual amount of Rs.366.17/- after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.603.18/- out of the base rate of Rs.969.35/-. Thus the opposite parties have charged the amount of Rs.26.54/- in excess on the subsidy amount granted by the Central Government from the complainant, as such he is entitled for the refund of the excess amount charged by the opposite parties. The complainant received the amount of Rs.552.89/- on dated 23.11.2013 as subsidy amount as credited in the bank account instead of the amount of Rs.603.18/- as subsidy amount passed by the Government of India, as such he is entitled for the refund of Rs.50.29/- from the opposite parties. The complainant further alleged that the Central Government sent the subsidy amount directly to the gas distributor/BPCL, it has not charged the VAT tax on the subsidy amount from the consumer. Now the Central Government has sent the subsidy amount directly in the consumer account, so why the distributor/BPCL is charging the VAT tax on the subsidy amount from the consumer for every refill. As per the direct benefit transfer for LPG, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India Scheme the direct benefit transfer for LPG consumer (DBTL) is the scheme aimed to improve the subsidy administration of the LPG across the country and as per this scheme an LPG consumer will get his/her cylinder at full market price i.e. subsidy will be transferred to his/her bank account upto a capped limit (9 cylinders in a year). The complainant several times requested the opposite parties to consider the matter in dispute and to refund him the abovesaid amount, but the opposite parties did not give any response to his requests. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties not to recover the amount of Rs.26.54/- on the subsidy amount granted by the Central Government from the consumers and to refund him the amount of Rs.26.54/- charged in excess and Rs.50.29/- as they credited the amount of Rs.552.89/- in the bank account on dated 23.11.2013 instead of Rs.603.18/- as subsidy amount passed by the Government of India alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that it does not fix the rates of the gas cylinders, rather it is only a distributor and the rates of the gas cylinders have been fixed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as per its policy, the online booking is done and accordingly, the cylinder delivery is made. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come before this Forum with clean hands to seek the relief. The true facts are that the complainant is having gas connection bearing No.2307 and booked the online gas cylinder refill on dated 21.11.2013 and the delivery of the gas cylinder has been given to him against the said booking and he has been charged the amount of Rs.1012/- (Rs.969.35/- + Rs.42.65/-) for the same and as per the policy the amount of Rs.34,410/- has been deposited in the account in PNB Bathinda vide release order No.17 dated 21.11.2013 on dated 22.11.2013. As per the policy the Punjab Government levied the amount of Rs.42.65/- as VAT and the opposite party No.1 has nothing do with the same. The said amount was charged as VAT from the consumers that has been paid to the Punjab Government. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that as per the directions and policy of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, the opposite party No.1 has charged the amount of Rs.1012/- including the amount of Rs.42.65/- as VAT, as such according to the policy of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, the VAT has been paid to the Punjab Government and subsidy amount has been deposited in the account of the consumer. The opposite party No.1 has not recovered or charged the excess amount, rather the payment has been received as per the policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties are charging the amount as per the policy and guidelines of the Government. A number of subsidized gas cylinders has been increased from 9 to 12 in a year.

3. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.2 vide postal receipt No.A RP295374292IN and opposite party No.3 vide postal receipt No.A RP295374434IN on dated 20.1.2014, but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against them.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The matter in dispute is regarding crediting the less amount as subsidy in the account of the complainant, charging the excess amount from him and imposing VAT tax on the subsidy amount given by the Central Government. The complainant received one domestic LPG refill for Rs.1012/- (Rs.969.35/- base rate + Rs.42.65/- vat tax) from the opposite party No.1 on 21.11.2013. The VAT tax of Rs.42.65/- charged on the amount of Rs.969.35/-, which the opposite parties cannot charge. As the subsidy amount of Rs.603.18/- is to be paid by the Central Government, thus as per law no VAT/Sales Tax (Including surcharge) can be levied on the subsidy amount, in this way the opposite parties should have charged the amount of Rs.985.46/- including VAT + Surcharge + Subsidy for one domestic LPG refill, from the consumers and should have charged VAT + Surcharge to the tune of Rs.16.11/- on the actual amount of Rs.366.17/- after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.603.18/- out of the base rate of Rs.969.35/-. The opposite parties should have not charged the amount of Rs.26.54/- in excess on the subsidy amount granted by the Central Government from the complainant. The complainant received the amount of Rs.552.89/- on dated 23.11.2013 as subsidy amount as credited in the bank account instead of the amount of Rs.603.18/- as subsidy amount passed by the Government of India, as such he is entitled for the refund of Rs.50.29/- from the opposite parties. The Central Government sent the subsidy amount directly to the gas distributor/BPCL, it has not charged the VAT tax on the subsidy amount from the consumer. Now the Central Government has sent the subsidy amount directly in the consumer account, thus the distributor/BPCL has no right to charge the VAT tax on the subsidy amount from the consumer for every refill.

7. The submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant booked online gas cylinder refill on dated 21.11.2013 and its delivery has been given to him and he has been charged the amount of Rs.1012/- (Rs.969.35/- + Rs.42.65/-) for the same and as per the policy the amount of Rs.34,410/- has been deposited in the account in PNB Bathinda vide release order No.17 dated 21.11.2013 on dated 22.11.2013. As per the policy the Punjab Government levied the amount of Rs.42.65/- as VAT and the opposite party No.1 has nothing do with the same. As per the directions and policy of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, the opposite party No.1 has charged the amount of Rs.1012/- including the amount of Rs.42.65/- as VAT, as such according to the policy of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, the VAT has been paid to the Punjab Government and subsidy amount has been deposited in the account of the consumer.

8. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant received LPG refill vide Ex.C2 for Rs.1012/- (Rs.969.35/- base rate + Rs.42.65/- vat tax) on dated 21.11.2013 against the subsidy of Rs.552.89/-; vide Ex.C8 for Rs.1081.50/- (Rs.1035.92/- base rate + Rs.45.58/- vat tax) on dated 18.12.2013 against the subsidy of Rs.615.63/-; vide Ex.C9 for Rs.1311.50/- (Rs.1256.23/- base rate + Rs.55.27/- vat tax) on dated 14.1.2014 against the subsidy of Rs.835.94/-; vide Ex.C10 for Rs.1204.50/- (Rs.1153.74 base rate + Rs.50.76/- vat tax) on dated 21.2.2014 against the subsidy of Rs.733.45/- and vide Ex.C11 for Rs.1152/- (Rs.1103.45/- base rate + Rs.48.55/- vat tax) on dated 8.3.2014 against the subsidy of Rs.683.16/-.

9. As per the submission of the complainant the opposite parties should have charged VAT + Surcharge to the tune of Rs.16.11/- on the actual amount of Rs.366.17/- after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.603.18/- out of the base rate

 

 

 

 

of Rs.969.35/-.The opposite parties have charged the amount of Rs.26.54/- in excess from the complainant on the subsidy amount granted by the Central Government. The subsidy amount of Rs.552.89/- has been received by the complainant on dated 23.11.2013 instead of the amount of Rs.603.18/-, thus the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.50.29/- from the amount of Rs.603.18/-. As the subsidy amount is sent directly by the Central Government to the consumers, so the opposite parties cannot levy the VAT on the subsidy amount. In its defence the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the Punjab Government levied the amount of Rs.42.65/- as VAT and the same has been charged from the complainant, thus the amount of Rs.1012/- has been charged from the complainant including the VAT of Rs.42.65/-.

10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it is clear that the opposite parties cannot charge the VAT on the subsidy amount sent to it by the Central Government. Moreover the VAT is to be charged on the actual rate, not on the subsidy amount, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not intentionally appeared before this Forum despite receiving summons or did not find it appropriate to sent their written statement through post or in any manner, which clearly depicts that they were well aware of the fact that some discrepancy has been done on their part. A perusal of all receipts i.e. Ex.C2, Ex.C8, Ex.C9, Ex.C10 and Ex.C11 show that the base rates differ and according to that VAT taxes also differ and subsidy amounts also differ, due to which it is difficult for the layman to understand what was the actual rate of the refill and how the subsidy amount has been calculated and on which amount the VAT has been calculated, again this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. At the time of issuance of all these receipts and seeking the payment by the consumers, no explanation has been given regarding the base rate, VAT and subsidy amount. Thus all the receipts show the different base rate, accordingly, VAT has been calculated and subsidy amounts also differ. The complainant has sought the information under RTI Act, in reply to this vide Ex.C18 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has given the details of the LPG refill rates, the relevant portion of Ex.C18 is reproduced:-

“1) Domestic LPG refill rates break up is given below:-

 

Sr. No.

Items

Rate for Domestic

(i)

Billable rate

Rs.378.79/-

(ii)

Sales Tax (Incl.Surcharge)

Rs.16.67/-

(iii)

Cost to the Distributor

Rs.395.46/-

(iv)

Distributor's Commission

Rs.37.25/- (Including Rs.15/- charged for home delivery of cylinders

(v)

VAT

Rs.1.64/-

(vi)

Retail Selling Price

Rs.434/- (Rounded off)

(vii)

Actual subsidy given per cylinder by Government of India

Rs.450/-

2) The break up of rates of Non subsidized cylinder with aadhar card linked is given below:-

 

Sr. No.

Items

Rate for Domestic

(i)

Billable rate

Rs.931.43/-

(ii)

Sales Tax (Incl.Surcharge)

Rs.40.98/-

(iii)

Cost to the Distributor

Rs.972.41/-

(iv)

Distributor's Commission

Rs.38/- (Including Rs.15/- charged for home delivery of cylinders

(v)

VAT

Rs.1.67/-

(vi)

Retail Selling Price

Rs.1012/- (Rounded off)

(vii)

One time advance for refill by Government of India

Rs.435/-

(viii)

Subsidy amount passed by Government of India

Rs.603.18/-”

A perusal of Ex.C12 shows that on 21.11.2013 the subsidy amount has been given to the tune of Rs.552.89/-; on 21.12.2013, Rs.615.63/-; on 16.1.2014, Rs.835.94/- and on 25.2.2014, Rs.733.45/-, this is not understandable that how the subsidy amount has been calculated. The opposite parties have given the break of subsidized LPG Refill and non-subsidized LPG Refill linked with aadhar card.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.26.54/- (i.e. charged in excess) and Rs.50.29/- (i.e. the amount credited less from the subsidy amount in his account) to the complainant.

12. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

09-04-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

 

 

(Jarnail Singh)

Member

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh]
MEMBER

 

 



Submitted Document in above complaint :