Payment Record Raises Questions After Jayant Dahake’s Name Appears; If 1,000 Customers Paid ₹236 Daily, Annual Collection Could Reach ₹8.61 Crore
Bhandara: Serious questions have been raised over the collection of ₹236 from LPG consumers in the name of Mandatory Inspection by Koache Gas Service in Bhandara. A receipt reportedly issued by the agency shows a ₹200 Mandatory Inspection charge plus ₹36 GST, making the total amount ₹236.
The issue has gained attention because of the mode of payment. According to the payment proof available with the consumer, the recipient name appearing in the online transaction is Jayant Dahake. This raises an important question: if the payment was being collected for an official gas agency service, why was the money being transferred to an account/UPI bearing an individual’s name? Was the concerned person officially authorised by the agency to collect such payments?
Was the Money Collected Without Conducting Inspection?
Consumers have alleged that in some cases, the Mandatory Inspection may not have actually been conducted despite the collection of ₹236.
If such allegations are established through an official investigation, the matter would go far beyond a single consumer or a single ₹236 payment.
For example, if 100 consumers paid ₹236 every day, the collection would amount to ₹23,600 per day.
If 1,000 consumers paid the same amount every day, the figure would reach ₹2.36 lakh per day, which translates to approximately ₹8.61 crore in a year.
However, ₹8.61 crore is only a mathematical projection, not a claim about the actual amount collected. The actual number of consumers, transactions and inspections must be verified through official records.
Bank and UPI Records Need Verification
The matter now calls for a transparent investigation by HPCL and the concerned authorities. The investigation should examine bank statements, UPI transaction records, GST entries, inspection reports and the agency’s official digital records.
In particular, authorities should verify whether payments appearing under the name Jayant Dahake were part of an officially authorised payment arrangement.
If the payment arrangement was authorised, the agency should clearly explain Mr. Dahake’s official role and why payments were being accepted through his account/UPI.
Demand for Strict Action if Irregularities Are Proven
If an investigation establishes that consumers were charged for Mandatory Inspection without the required inspection being carried out, or that money was collected through an unauthorised payment channel, appropriate action should be taken under the applicable rules.
Consumers are also demanding that such collection practices be stopped until the facts are verified. In case of serious violations, the competent authorities should consider appropriate action against the agency, including suspension or cancellation of its authorisation and, where legally warranted, sealing of the agency.
Koache Gas Service and Jayant Dahake’s Response Is Important
The response of Koache Gas Service and Jayant Dahake is crucial to the matter. If the payment arrangement is officially authorised and all ₹236 transactions are properly recorded in the agency/company accounts, the relevant documentation should clarify the situation.
At the same time, if consumers were charged without an actual inspection, those transactions should be investigated and appropriate corrective action taken.
A ₹236 payment may appear small, but if similar collections were made from a large number of consumers, the total amount could become substantial. The truth can only be established through a transparent verification of payment, inspection and accounting records.
Disclaimer: This report presents allegations and questions arising from the available receipt and payment-related evidence. No individual or organisation is being declared guilty. The final conclusion should be based on an official investigation and the response of the concerned parties.