2..Managing Director, Kerala state co/op.consumer federation ,Gandhi Nagar,Kochin 3..Manager, Koldy Pwetroleum India , Moongilamada, Vannamada,Kozhinhampara, Palakkad 1.Managing Director,Anjarakandy farmers s.c.Bank,Kavinmoola, P.O.Mamba,
...........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
2.9.08 Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This complaint is filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost. The complainant’s case is that she had availed gas connection on 13.11.1998 from the 1st opposite party and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were supplied refilled gas cylinders. At the time of availing connection she had given Rs.500/- as registration charge and Rs.5250/- as deposit with a stipulation that the above said amount of Rs.5750/- will be refunded, at the time of surrendering the connection later on the supply of refilled gas cylinder became irregular and the gas supplied was of substandard in quality and quantity. Because of these reasons she had surrendered the gas connection and demanded for the deposited amount. But the opposite parties were not ready to refund the amount. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version. 1st opposite party admits that the complainant had availed gas connection by paying an amount of Rs.5750/- and the same was handed over to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party admits that there caused some delay in the supply of refilled cylinders which was due to the act of opposite parties 2 and 3 and hence the complaint against opposite party is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party also admits that the complainant had availed gas connection by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. But contended that the delay was caused not due to any act or omission on the part of them, but because of the withdrawal of 3rd opposite party from supplying gas. Out of the amount received by them, they had handed over Rs.5500/- to the 3rd opposite party, Rs.500/- to the 1st opposite party and Rs.150/- appropriate themselves. So there is no deficiency on their part and hence 3rsd opposite party is liable, if any deficiency is seen. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Relief and cost? The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 The oral testimony, Ext.A1 along with the admission of opposite parties proves that complainant had availed gas connection by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties admits that there is some deficiency in supplying the refilled gas cylinder. More over they are not willing to return back the deposited amount. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 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 against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/ President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Receipt dt.13.11.98 issued by OP1 A2.Receipt dt.22.3.04 issued by OP1. Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Kannur.
