Kerala

Kannur

CC/08/27

T.Anitha,Sayoojyam,Nalampeedika, P.O.Mamba,Kannur - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Managing Director,Ancharakandy Farmers SC Bank,Kavinmoola, P.O.Mamba,Kannur - Opp.Party(s)

M.P.Vinayaraj

03 Sep 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/27

T.Anitha,Sayoojyam,Nalampeedika, P.O.Mamba,Kannur
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

1.Managing Director,Ancharakandy Farmers SC Bank,Kavinmoola, P.O.Mamba,Kannur
2.Managing Director,Kerala state co.op.consumer federation,Gandhi Nagar, Kochi
3.Manager,Koldy Petroleum India,Moongilmada, Vannamada, Kozhinhampara,Palakkad
...........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):




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.

ORDER

Smt.PREETHAKUMARI. K.P: MEMBER This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs 5750/-with interest and cost. The complainant’s case is that she had availed gas connection from the first opposite party by paying an amount of Rs 5750/- with a stipulation that the deposit amount will be refunded at the time of surrendering gas connection. The opposite parties 2 & 3 were supplying gas as a joint venture. Subsequently the supply of gas became irregular and that supplied was of substandard in quality and quantity. So the complainant had made complaint before first opposite party but they represented that they are not in a position to do anything since opposite parties 2 & 3 were only liable for this. Because of this the complainant had surrendered the gas connection and demanded for deposit amount . But they were not willing to do so. Hence this complaint. Even though the Forum had issued notice to all opposite parties, only first opposite party appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant had availed gas connection by giving an amount of Rs 5750/-. But contended that they had handed over the amount to opposite party no.2 and oppoiste party no.1 has acted only as an agent and hence have no liability to refund the amount. Delay caused in supplying gas was due to the act of opposite parties 2 & 3and hence complaint against them is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration 1. Whether there is any deficiency caused on the part of opposite parties? 2. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A4. ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2. The opposite party no.1 admits that the complainant had availed gas connection by giving an amount of Rs 5750/-and some deficiency was caused due to the act of opposite parties 2 & 3 in supplying refilled cylinders in time. The opposite parties 2 & 3 had not appeared. Even though the complainant had surrendered the gas connection, the opposite parties were not ready to refund the deposit amount. So we are of the opinion that all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the deposit amount. In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount of 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 at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- PRSIDENT APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Receipt dt. 9.10.98 issued by the first opposite party A2.Receipt dt. 22.3.2001 issued by the first opposite party A3. Photocopy of the notice dt28.12.2007 sent to the Ist opposite party. A4. Letter dt. 7.1.2008 sent by the Ist opposite party Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL Witness examined for the complainant-Nil Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL Forwarded/ by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT v




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