DOF 15.1.10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                                  Dated this, the  4^th  day of    May  2010

C.C.No.18/2010

C.P.Prakash Babu,

Puthiyapurayil House,

P.O.Mundalur,

Peralassery.                                                                     Complainant

1. Secretary,

    Mavilayi  Service co.op.Bank,

     P.O.Mavilayi

 2. Managing Director,

    Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation,                   opposite parties

    Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.

3.Manager,

   Koldy Petrtoleum India,

   Moongilmada,Vannamada,

   Kozhinhampara,Palakkad.

          O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with compensation and cost.

            The case of the complainant is that he has availed cooking gas connection from the 1^st opposite party, bank in the year  1998. The distribution of gas connection is a joint effort of all the opposite parties. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.5750/- at the time of taking the connection. Opposite parties are liable to return the amount at the time of surrendering the equipments inconsequence of disconnection as assured by 1^st opposite party. Since the gas distribution happened to be irregular and increase in price complainant surrendered the equipments and requested to refund the amount. Opposite parties did not refund the amount even after the surrender of cylinders and regulator. Hence this complaint.

            After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to both sides. But Opposite parties 2 and 3 sent version through post but they did not appear before this Forum. 1^st opposite party neither entered appearance nor filed version.

2^nd opposite party consumer Fed filed version contending that it is not correct to say that Rs.500/- paid by complainant as registration fee and the balance Rs.5250/- as security deposit. In fact the whole amount of Rs.5750/- was only connection fee. Therefore the claim for refund of the amount in pretext of security deposit is baseless.

            3rd opposite party contended in their version  that they are not liable to refund any amount to the complainant in the absence of any contract to that effect  consumer fed has to pay the amount. Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. has supply LPG connection consisting of 2 cylinders and one regulator for each connection to the consumer  and has fulfilled their part of the contract. In such circumstances the complaint against them has to be dismissed.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The oral  evidence of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Opposite parties has neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            Complainant availed gas connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.5750/-. Ext.A1 is the connection certificate,  A2 is the receipt of payment  and A3 is the receipt issued by Bank in respect of surrendering of equipments . The evidence  adduced by the complainant proves that opposite parties  failed to distribute the cooking gas regularly. When the consumer was complained , 1^st opposite party expressed his inability and explained that it is the consumer fed and Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. responsible for the  supply of gas and 1^st opposite party is  only distributing it to the consumers.  Consumer fed contended that distribution became irregular only because the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. abruptly stopped the supply. On the other hand the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.  Contended that they have no liability to pay any amount since they have no contractual relation with the consumers. But they have admitted that they have contract with the consumer fed. It is a fact that this contractual obligation on the part of the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. has not been performed  distribution of gas  will be interrupted and the consumer will ultimately suffer the consequences in its original form. The available evidence on record goes to show that the distribution of gas became irregular, whatever maybe the problem existed in between the opposite parties. If gas is not available regularly   that will naturally affected the daily affairs of the family. It is quite clear that in the present case  the cooking gas distribution became irregular gradually and there by the consumer suffered. So we have no hesitation to hold that this state of affairs is the result of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the amount refunded, which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay. The issue Nos. 1 to 3 partly found in favour of complainant.

            In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund 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.

                                    Sd/-                    Sd/-                               Sd/-

                             President                 Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Connectin certificated issued by OP

A2. & A3.Receipt dt.5.1.10  issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur