4.10Sri.K.Gopalan, President<br /> <br /> As the subject matter and opposite parties are one and the same, the above four complaints have taken up for consideration together for the sake of convenience.<br /> <br /> <br /> OP.No.72/2005<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the security deposit of Rs.2900/- with 18% interest and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages with cost of this proceedings Rs.750/-<br /> The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: - The complainant attracted by the advertisement took gas connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.2900/-. The complainant deposited the amount in November 2001 with 1st opposite party, for which the opposite party had issued the receipt of 2nd opposite party. The entire transactions were taken place through 1st opposite party. There was an offer of 5 liter pressure cooker to those who deposit Rs.2900/-. In the receipt,2nd opposite party with the consent and connivance of 1st opposite party have made entry to the effect that it was the price of the Gas stove and Pressure cooker. At the beginning complainant has no suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the transaction whereas opposite parties had exploited the trust reposed on 1st opposite party. Complainant was consumer No. 14 with card No.13006. Complainant had to take delivery of refilled cylinders from 1st opposite party. The supply of gas cylinder became irregular even though proper booking was made. The complainant altogether did not get more than 3 cylinders and the last cylinder was received on 7.1.2004. Complainant thus caused to sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties on 14.2.2004 terminating the booking contract with immediate effect and call upon them to refund the security deposit of Rs.2900/-. Even though both opposite parties have acknowledged the notice, but they did not sent reply nor heed to the demand of complainant. Complainant takes gas connection for her domestic purpose. Since there was no supply of gas the complainant suffered much mental pain and sufferings for which opposite parties are alone responsible. There was deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties in providing gas supply to the complainant. The complainant quantifies the damages to the tune of Rs.10, 000/-. Hence this complaint for an order to refund of the security deposit Rs.2900/- with 18% interest and Rs.10, 000/- as damages with a sum of Rs.750/- as the cost of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties filed version separately. The contention of 1st opposite party in brief is as follows: - The 1st opposite party has no branch at Chala Padinharaekara. The 1st opposite party has no connection or contract with the complainant in respect of supply of gas. Hence the complaint as against 1st opposite party is not maintainable. The complainant is not at all a consumer of 1st opposite party. The allegation contained in the complaint that 1st opposite party made wide publicity for the sale of gas connection on deposit of Rs.2900/-, that they failed to supply the refilled gas cylinders, that they offered to gift pressure cooker of 5 liters free of cost, that the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10, 000/- due to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties etc. are absolutely false, unfounded and baseless. All the said allegations are denied. 1st opposite party is neither the agency nor the dealer of the 2nd opposite party in the business conducted by 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party had no connection, responsibility or liability. It is true that 2nd opposite party had made deposit to provide gas connection to its customer. The 2nd opposite party started the business by taking the building of this opposite party bearing Panchayath No.II/205B on lease. There is no legal bar in letting out the building of this opposite party on lease to any intending lessee. The 2nd opposite party had appointed an employee and it was he who had been conducting business of 2nd opposite party in the building. It is also true that this opposite party used to arrange loan to the needy people for availing gas connection. 1st opposite party had no connection and control over the business conducted by the 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party is not at all liable to pay any amount to the complainant. 1st opposite party admits that the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice to him. 1st opposite party had sent a reply notice dt.26.2.2004. The complaint lacks confides.<br /> The contentions of 2nd opposite party in brief are as follows: - It is admitted that gas connection supplied through1st opposite party-co. operative bank to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party has not received any amount as security deposit from the complainant. The amount received from the complainant of Rs.2900/- by the 2nd opposite party is the cost of stove, cost of cylinder, regulator, lighter, tube etc. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as security to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is the dealer of “Gas point Petroleum India Ltd.” is a private gas agency and they have got no subsidy from the government. So the price of the gas may varying according to the international market rate. This opposite party is still supplying gas to the consumers. Even now 2nd opposite party is ready to supply the gas to the complainant. The allegation in the complaint that if anybody deposit of sum of Rs.2900/- with them gas connection would be provided with regular uninterrupted supply of filled up gas cylinders is incorrect, false, baseless and unfounded and hence denied. There is no merit in the complaint.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost?<br /> OP.73/2005<br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the security deposit of Rs.2900/- with 18% interest and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages with cost of this proceedings Rs.750/-.<br /> The facts of the case are same as that of OP.72/2005. So we are not repeating the same. Complainant paid Rs.2900/- to opposite party on November 2001 with first opposite party. <br /> The1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version separately but reiterating the same contentions raised in the version of OP.72/2005.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties<<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost?<br /> OP.74/2005<br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the security deposit of Rs.2900/- with 18% interest and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages with cost of this proceedings Rs.750/-.<br /> The facts of the case are same as that of OP.72/2005. Complainant attracted by advertisement took gas connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.2900/-. Since all other facts are same it is not repeating here.<br /> The1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version separately but reiterating the same contentions raised in the version of OP.72/2005.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties<<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost?<br /> OP.75/2005<br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the security deposit of Rs.2900/- with 18% interest and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages with cost of this proceedings Rs.750/-.<br /> The facts of the case are same as that of OP.72/2005. The Complainant attracted by advertisement took gas connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.2900/- on November 2001. . Since all other facts are same we are not repeating it here again.<br /> The1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version separately but reiterating the same contentions raised in the version of OP.72/2005.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties<<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost?<br /> The evidence in the above four complaints consists of the oral evidences of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts.A1 to A12.The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 marked. .<br /> Issue No.1 in OP.Nos.72/2005,73/2005,74/2005 and 75/2005<br /> The 1st issue in the above 4 complaints have taken up for consideration together for the sake of convenience and for avoiding repetition of discussion of evidence in the complaints. The case of the complainants in all the complaints is that the complainants took gas connection, by paying an amount of Rs.2900/- each. The 2nd opposite party admitted that they have supplied gas connection through1st opposite party co-operative bank to the complainants. The 2nd opposite party contended that the amount received from the complainants of Rs.2900/- each by the 2ndopposite party are the costs of stove, gas cylinders, regulator, lighter, tube etc. This statement is an admission that the 2nd opposite party has received the amount of Rs.2900/- each from the complainants. Thus it is undoubtedly proved that the complainants took gas connections by paying a sum of Rs.2900/- each and the amounts are received by 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party has stated in his version that they have supplied gas connection through 1st opposite party- co. operative bank to the complainant. This is not denied by 1st opposite party. It is the case of the complainants that the 1st opposite party being co. operative bank the complainants deposited the required amount in November 2001 with 1st oppose party for which the 1st opposite party had issued the receipt of 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party was a real stranger to the complainant and the entire transactions were taken place through 1st opposite party. But the above facts were not denied by 1st opposite party. It shows that the receipts are issued by 1st opposite party and amount paid in November 2001 with 1st opposite party. The role of 1st opposite party-co. operative bank is so sufficient to make believe the ordinary consumers that the business of gas supply is conducted with the sincere involvement of co. operative bank. The role of the bank created an impression from among the consumers. The bank is also involved in the business of supply of gas. The involvement of the bank impressed consumers to believe that the bank is the leader of the business. . It can be seen that 1st opposite party used to arrange loans to the needy people for availing gas connection. This is an admission that the bank has closely involved in the promotion of business of gas supply intended to have economic benefit what is the real purpose for which the loan is arranged. Why the bank took so much of interest to make arrangements for loan to those who wanted the gas. No doubt profit motive. Consumers are persuaded to avail gas connection by offering loans. Hence the contention of 1st opposite party that they had no connection or control over the business conducted by 2nd opposite party is not at all true. With the available evidence on record it can be seen that the opposite party-bank sited as the cynosure in front of the consumers as far as the business of this gas supply is concerned. All the witnesses categorically stated that 1st opposite party being a cooperative bank the complainants deposited the required amount in November 2001 with 1st opposite party for which the 1st opposite party had issued the receipts of 2nd opposite party. It is also stated that 2nd opposite party is a real stranger to the complainants and the entire transactions were taken place through 1st opposite party. Ext.A1 is the lawyer notice sent by complainant. Complainant alleged that both opposite parties did not care to send reply. Though 1st opposite party denied it and stated that they sent registered lawyer reply dt.26.2.2004. But no copy of the notice produced. No receipt produced. No acknowledgement produce. 1st opposite party is a bank and those things are part of the records. Those records if not produced by such an institution like bank there is no meaning in believing that the bank had sent a reply lawyer notice. The allegation contended in the complaint that the opposite parties failed to supply the refilled gas cylinder are denied by 1st opposite party to mean that there was regular supply of gas. The attempt of 1st opposite party is to establish that he has no connection with gas business and at the same time he has so much information with him so as to denying the allegation of failure of supply of gas. The complainants stated that they have taken gas connection for cooking needs in the house. But they were much disappointed due to irregular supply by which they could not fulfill their daily needs of cooking. All the complainants have stated that it is incorrect to say that the 1st opposite party has neither any relation with 2nd opposite party nor any connection with supply of gas. The evidence adduced by the complainants cannot be rejected. Thus we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. This issue is answered in favour of the complainant.<br /> Issue No.2 & 3<br /> All the Complainants have stated that relying on the publicity and especially 1st opposite party being a co. operative bank the complainant deposited Rs.2900/- each of them with 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has issued the receipt of 2nd opposite party. Though the bill has not been produced, the complainants admitted that there is entry to the effect that money paid was the price of gas stove and pressure cooker. In the complaints itself it is stated that in the receipt, 2ndopposite party with the consent of 1st opposite party have made entry to the effect that it was the price of gas stove and pressure cooker, gas cylinder, regulator, lighter, tube etc. At the time of issuing receipt, the complainants have not shown any displeasure with the receipt. There is no explanation for non-production of receipt. Any how or other the complainant received stove, cooking gas regulator, tube etc. on payment of Rs.2900/- each .It can be very well assumed that these articles are still with the complainants. Though the price of these articles is not mentioned, its value cannot be ignored. Taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that a direction to give Rs.1000/- each to the complainants will meet the ends of justice in this case. The complainants are also entitled for Rs.250/- each as the cost of these proceedings. These issues are answered partly in favour of the complainants.<br /> In view of the findings the complainants are entitled to get an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as the cost of these proceedings to each complainants in OP.Nos.72/05. 73/05, 74/05 and 75/05 <br /> <br /> In the result, OP.72/2005 is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as costs of this proceedings 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 the consumer protection Act.<br /> In the result, OP.73/2005 is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as costs of this proceedings 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 the consumer protection Act.<br /> In the result, OP.74/2005 is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as costs of this proceedings 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 the consumer protection Act.<br /> In the result, OP.75/2005 is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as costs of this proceedings 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 the consumer protection Act.<br /> Sd/ Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops dt.14.2.04<br /> A2.Consumer Card issued by OP to complainant in OP72/05<br /> A3. Receipt issued by OP<br /> A4.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops dt.14.2.04<br /> A5.Consumer Card issued by OP to complainant in OP73/05<br /> A6. Receipt issued by OP<br /> A7.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops dt.14.2.04<br /> A8.Consumer Card issued by OP to complainant in OP74/05<br /> A9. Receipt issued by OP<br /> A10.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops dt.14.2.04<br /> A11.Consumer Card issued by OP to complainant in OP75/05 <br /> A12. Receipt issued by OP<br /> Exhibits for the opposite parties<br /> B1.Copy of the minutes<br /> B2.Counterfoil of the receipts<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Bindu.K.K<br /> PW2.P.Sobha<br /> PW3.P.K.Vimala<br /> PW4.K.V.Gouri<br /> Witness examined for the opposite parties<br /> DW1.Pushpavally<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br /> <br /> <br /> Dispatched on<br /> <br /> Through Post/hand <br /> .08