Kerala

Kannur

CC/09/128

P Manoharan, Chakkulandi house, Ummenchira post - 670649. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Managing Director, Kerala State Co-op Consumer Federation Ltd., Gandhinagar, Kochi. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2009

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/128

P Manoharan, Chakkulandi house, Ummenchira post - 670649.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

1. Managing Director, Kerala State Co-op Consumer Federation Ltd., Gandhinagar, Kochi.
2. The Secretary, Vadakkumbad SC Bank, Vadakkumbad post, 670649.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

 

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

 

                                                  Dated this, the   19th   day of  October 2009

 

                                                            CC.128/2009

P.Manoharan,

Chakkulandi House,

P.O.Ummenchira.

(Rep. byAdv.K.Pramod)                                  Complainant

 

1. The Managing Director,

   Kerala State consumer federation,

   Gandhi Nagar, Cochin

2. The Secretary,

   Vadakkumbad Service co.op.Bank.               Opposite parties

   P.O.Vadakkumbad

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the deposit Rs.5750/- and a compensation of Rs.5000/- along with the cost of this litigation.

            As per the averments the complainant availed gas connection from 2nd opposite party bank by paying Rs.5750/-. Cooking gas distribution was a joint venture of opposite parties. Opposite parties promised that the amount paid at the time of booking will be refunded when surrendering the gas connection. Complainant took the connection believing the words of 2nd opposite party later on opposite party did not supply refilled cylinders regularly. Opposite parties failed to honour their promise of uninterrupted supply of gas. Due to the above said deficiency in service the complaint was not able to retain the gas connection and surrendered gas connection with two cylinders and one regulator. Though requested to refund the amount paid opposite party has not so far returned the amount. Hence this complaint.

            Forum send notice to all parties but both the opposite parties did not take care to appear before the Forum or filed any version. Opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and set exprte.

            The main point to be answered is whether or not the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint.

            The complainant has no oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A7marked.

            Ext.A4 is the lawyer notice send by the complaint to opposite parties 1 and 2 calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.5750/- being the deposit made at the time of taking the gas connection and Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost. Ext.A5 postal  receipt and Ext.A6 postal acknowledgement proves that 2nd opposite party received the notice and Ext.A7 proves that consumer fed, 1st opposite party, also received the notice Ext.A1 is the certificate issued by2nd opposite party bank stating clearly that the complainant has taken gas connection for an amount of Rs.5750/-. The receipt number is 292 and connection number 38. The notice and documents makes it clear that the complainant took gas connection on payment of Rs.5750/- and due to reasons of non-supply of gas the connection together with cylinders and regulator has been surrendered demanding to  refund the amount. But amount has not so far been returned. It can be seen that interrupted supply of gas caused the surrender of connection and equipments. If there is no gas supply the only way open before the complainant is to surrender the connection and get the amount back. There s no doubt that the irregular supply of gas can only be considered as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount. Considering the entire facts and reality we re of opinion, that the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs.5750/-.

 

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                                             Sd/-                         Sd/-                            Sd/-

                                         President                 Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2.certificate issued by OP

A3.Coupon issued by OP

A4.copy of the lawyer notice issued to OP

A5  toA7.Postal receipts and AD cards

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for either side:  Nil

 

                                    /forwarded by order/

 

                                    Senior Superintendent

 

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.

 

 




......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P