DOF 20.6.09

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  4^th   day of May 2010

C.C.No.167/2009

M.P.Damodaran

PAH. K.P.Balan Nambiar,

Alirichalil,

Poyyil House,

Post Mundalur,

Kannur Dist.                                                                    Complainant

1. Secretary,

    Mavilayi  Service co.op.Bank,

     P.O.Mavilayi.

2. Manager, Neethi Store,

    Moonu Periya,

    Post Mundalur

 2. Managing Director,

    Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation,                   opposite parties

    Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.

          O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with compensation and cost.

            The case of the complainant is that he has availed cooking gas connection from the 1^st opposite party, bank. The distribution of gas connection is a joint effort of all the opposite parties. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.5750/- at the time of taking the connection. Opposite parties are liable to return the amount at the time of surrendering the equipments inconsequence of disconnection as assured by 1^st opposite party. Since the gas distribution happened to be irregular and increase in price complainant surrendered the equipments and requested to refund the amount. Opposite parties did not refund the amount even after the surrender of cylinders and regulator. Hence this complaint.

            In pursuance  of the notice opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed version separately.

            1^st opposite party filed version contending that it is not correct to say that the opposite party is supplying LPG to the customers through Neethi stores and the complainant paid Rs.5750/- to the opposite party. It is also not correct to say that opposite party was very irregular in supplying the gas. 1^st opposite party also contended that the act of opposite party did not cause any financial loss or hardship to the complainant.  This opposite party is not liable for the non- supply of cooking gas. This opposite party has no direct connection with complainant in the alleged LPG  connection and its regulator.  The opposite party is only a secondary accessory giving loan facility to the consumer of the consumer fed for the gas connection through the Neethi stores. Consumer fed is the prime body introduced the scheme of Neethi gas to supply LPG gas connection to its consumers. Consumer fed is having direct control over all the formalities for the supply of gas connection  through Neethi  gas. The complainant has no consumer relation with this opposite party. Hence the complaint in no way entitled to get any remedy from this opposite party. Hence to dismiss the compliant against this opposite party.

3^rd  opposite party consumer Fed filed version contending that it is not correct to say that Rs.500/- paid by complainant as registration fee and the balance Rs.5250/- as security deposit. In fact the whole amount of Rs.5750/- was only connection fee. Therefore the claim for refund of the amount in pretext of security deposit is baseless.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral evidence of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party has neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            Complainant availed gas connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.5750/-. Ext.A1 is the  Power of attorney, A2  is the receipt issued by opposite party for payment and A3 is the certificate issued in respect of surrendering of equipments and regulator. The evidence  adduced by the complainant proves that opposite parties  failed to distribute the cooking gas regularly  when the consumer was complained , 1^st opposite party expressed his inability and explained that it is the consumer fed and Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. responsible for the  supply of gas and 1^st opposite party is  only distribute it to the consumers. The available evidence on record shows that the distribution of gas became irregular, whatever maybe the problem existed in between the opposite parties. If gas is not available regularly   that will naturally affected the daily affairs of the family. It is quite clear that in the present case that the cooking gas distribution became irregular gradually and thereby suffered  the consumer. So we have no hesitation to hold that this state of affairs is the result of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the amount refunded, which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay. The issue Nos. 1 to 3 partly found in favour of complainant.

            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.Power of Attorney

A2. & A3.Receipt  issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur