Sri.K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return back Rs 5750/- being the deposited amount for availing gas connection.<br /> The complainant submits that he had availed gas connection from the first opposite party. The gas had been supplied by the opposite parties jointly. AT the time of availing connection the complainant had given Rs 5750/-out of which Rs 5250/- is security deposit and Rs 500/- is the registration charge. This amount was accepted by the first opposite party with a condition to return back the amount to the complainant at the time of surrendering the gas connection. He further submits that the gas supplied by the opposite parties were substandard in quality and quantity. On enquiry the first opposite party described that the opposite party No.2 and opposite party no.3 were liable for the deficiency. Because of that he had surrendered the gas connection and demanded for the amount given by him at the time of availing gas connection. The first opposite party replied that they had given the amount to opposite parties 2 & 3 and hence they were not liable to return back the same. Hence he had filed his complaint.<br /> On receiving the complaint, notice was issued to all the opposite parties and they had acknowledged it. Opposite [parties 1 & 2 filed version. But the opposite party no.3 did not care even to appear before the Forum.<br /> Opposite party no.1 filed version admitting that the complainant had availed gas connection by giving Rs 5750/- with a condition to return back the amount while surrendering the connection. But their role in supplying gas is only that of a “post office”and hence the complainant is not a consumer as far as the first opposite party is concerned. The amount deposited by the complainant in the bank is in the account of opposite parties 2 & 3 and not in their account and hence the bank is not in a position to utilize the same. The amount was sent to the opposite party no.2 by way of demand draft. So there is no deficiency in the service of the bank and only opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable if any deficiency to the service and hence the case is liable to be dismissed.<br /> The opposite party No.2 also filed version by contending that opposite party no.2 is not a public sector company dealing with petroleum products and hence they had to depend on private companies for buying bulk petroleum gas since the rules prevents M/s. Indian Oil & Hindustan Petroleum from getting bulk gas for parallel marketing . Thus opposite party no.2 had entered into a contract with Koldy Petroleum India Ltd for supplying filled cooking gas cylinders to delivery to the societies from where consumers availed cooking gas connection. AT the time Consumerfed enterd into supply of cooking gas, the price of the bulk gas was more or less the same in public and private sector companies. The subsidy given to the cooking gas by the Government of India was restricted only to the public sector companies and such privileges were denied to the ConsumerFed. So the Consumer Fed was not in a position to supply the gas at the price that of public sector. So the opposite party no.3 backed out from supplying filled cylinder to the Consumer Fed. The opposite party no.2 had received Rs 5750/- out of which RS 5,500/- was given to third opposite party and Rs 100/- to first opposite party. In fact opposite party no.3 had provided gas connection and cheated the consumers. <br /> From the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Relief and cost?<br /> The evidnce in this case consists of evidence of PW1 and the documents which were markd as Exts. A1 to A4.<br /> ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2: The deposition of the complainant along with the exhibits A1 and A2 shows that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs 5750/- for gas connection. This was issued by opposite party no.1. Exhibit A3 is the connection certificate issued by oppostite parties 2 & 3. Ext,. A4 shows that the complainant had surrendered the gas connection . But they had not returned the deposited amount. This proves that the complainant is a consumer of all opposite parties and there was deficiency on the part of opposite parties. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the deposit amount and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return back the amount of Rs 5750/-. The issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.<br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to return back the deposited 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 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. Receipt dt. 30.3.98 issued by the first oppositeparty<br /> A2. Receipt dt. 23.4.98 issued by the first opposite party<br /> A3. Connection certificate No.1210 issued by the opposite party.<br /> A4.Receipt dt. 29.7.2006 issued by the first opposite party<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br />