Sri.K. GOPALAN : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection A ct for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs 5750/- with a sum of Rs 5000/- as compensation and cost of this proceedings.<br /> The complainant’s case in brief are as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purposes. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the first opposite party he assured that the 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs 5750/- which will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs 5750/-and availed gas connection . But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of the first opposite party. For the last 6 months of filing the complaint, complainant was not getting the cylinders in time. The complainant who was solely depending upon gas for cooking suffered great hardship. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount . First opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.<br /> The opposite parties filed their version contending that the Consumer Fed has suffered heavy loss by venturing in the cooking gas segment at a time there was undue delay in getting gas connection. 2nd opposite party contended that it is not correct to say that Rs 500/- paid by the complainant as registration fee and the balance of Rs 5250/- as security deposit. In fact an amount of Rs 5750/- was connection fee only. Therefore the claim for refund of the same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless. The averment that the gas supplied is of inferior quality and of lesser weight than envisaged is totally baseless and is denied. The connection fee cannot be considered as a charge for service rendered to the consumers and if at all refund is essential it is to be only proportional.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is ny deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> The evidence consists of the chief affidavit of complainant and Ext. A1 and A2.<br /> ISSUE Nos. 1 to 3: <br /> The complainant has stated in the complaint that she has availed gas connection from first opposite party by paying an amount of Rs 5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount will be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext. A1 connection certificate issued by KOldy Petroleum India Ltd proves that the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties. Complainant stated that the opposite parties did not supply gas regularly. It is understandable that if there is no supply of gas that creates much trouble to those consumers of gas users. When it was complained to first opposite party his explanation was that opposite parties 2nd and 3rd are responsible for those troubles. It may be true that it is through first opposite party consumers are connected with other opposite parties. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs 5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs 5750/- 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.<br /> <br /> Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Connection certificate No. 366 issued by the opposite party.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainant-Nil<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />