Kerala

Kannur

CC/08/49

K.V.Musthafa, S/o.Ibrahim, Shamina Manzil, ChembilodeP.O.Mowanchery - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Secretary, Koyoodu S.C.Bank, Koyoodu Branch, P.O.Koyyode - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/49

K.V.Musthafa, S/o.Ibrahim, Shamina Manzil, ChembilodeP.O.Mowanchery
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

1.Secretary, Koyoodu S.C.Bank, Koyoodu Branch, P.O.Koyyode
2.Managing Directgor,Kerala State Co-op.Consumer Federation, Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam, Kochi 20
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


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

Sri. K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT This is a petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to refund the amount deposited with the opposite party Rs5750/- with compensation and cost. As per the averment in the complaint, complainant approached first opposite party’s bank on 1.5.98 and applied for gas connection. He has paid Rs5750/- to first opposite party’s bank on 5.5.98 and received receipt for the same. The Ist opposite party agreed to refund the amount when the gas connection is not supplied and equipments are surrendered. The complainant was given gas connection but first opposite party was irregular in supplying gas. Though complained repeatedly, there was no result and finally complainant compelled to disconnect the gas and surrendered equipments to first opposite party’s bank. The complainant requested first opposite party to return the money paid but the bank did not return the amount. Lawyer notice was sent to the first opposite party’s bank for which reply notice issued asking the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party for solution since first opposite party is only an agent of 2nd opposite party. Complainant paid money to the first opposite party so that opposite party no.1 is liable to return money to complainant. Hence this complaint. Notice was issued to all the parties but opposite party 1 and 2 neither cared to appear before the Forum nor filed version . Subsequently opposite party 1 and 2 were called absent and set exparte. On the above pleadings following issues are framed for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount ? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant .ISSUE Nos.1 to 3: The complainant has paid an amount of Rs 5750/- with the opposite party bank for getting LPG connection . But distribution of gas became irregular subsequently . The supply was interrupted without any reason on the part of the complainant. Thus the complainant forced to surrender the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. The complainant produced documents to show that she has taken LPG connection from the opposite party 1 bank. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by opposite party 1 bank for Rs 5750/- for gas connection. Ext.A2 is the notice sent to opposite party 1 bank for and on behalf of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the reply notice sent to complainant by opposite party 1 bank. Ext. A2 is an evidence that the complainant has lodged complaint before the opposite party 1 bank . Ext.A3 reveals that the complainant was the consumer and opposite party 1 bank failed to solve the issue of complainant as consumer. It is quite true that when the gas is not supplied the consumer has no use with the empty cylinder and regulator. Consumer has no other to go except surrender the cylinder and regulator. So it is the duty of the opposite parties to refund the amount to complainant. But the amount was not refunded. This is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the amount Rs 5750 deposited with the opposite party. Thus these issues are answered in favour of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to refund an 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 as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. No cost. Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Receipt dt. 5.51998 issued by the first opposite party A2. Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 27.12.2007 sent to the Ist opposite party A3. Reply lawyer notice dt. 12.1.2008 sent by the Ist opposite party Exhibits for the opposite party – Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party Nil Forwarded/by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT