<br /> By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> Petitioner is a consumer of first respondent institution vide No.10552. By attracting the advertisement on 20.8.99 by the first respondent, the petitioner taken Neethi Gas Connection on 21.6.2000 from the first respondent and through the 2nd respondent L.P. gas is received. As per the advertisement on 20.8.99 they assured that the rate of gas will be the same as charged by Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Upon this promise the petitioner remitted Rs.5750/- in the first respondent’s institution and obtained the connection. From the beginning Rs.212/- was charged for the L.P.G. having 12.2 kg. But now first respondent is charging Rs.400/- for 12.2 kg L.P.G. But the above mentioned public sector agencies are charging only Rs.301.65 for 14.5 kg. L.P.G. It is a breach of promise made by the respondents. A complaint is sent to the respondents, reply is there. On 14.8.06 notice sent to return the amount of Rs.5750/- and to take back the connection but no reply and no remedy. Hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. The counter of respondents-1 and 2 in brief is as follows. As Consumer Fed is not a public sector company dealing with petroleum products it had to depend on private companies for buying petroleum gas since the rules prevent M/s. Indian Oil and Hindustan petroleum from selling bulk gas for parallel marketing. Then Consumerfed entered into a contract with Sri Sakthi L.P.G. Ltd. At the time of Consumerfed entered into supply of cooking gas, the price of the bulk gas was more or less the same in public and private sector companies. The Government of India allowed subsidy to the cooking gas but this was allowed only to the public sector companies such as Bharath Petroleum, Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum. The privilege of subsidy was denied for the gas sold through Consumerfed. It resulted in a situation where Consumerfed could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector companies without incurring heavy loss. It may be in view of this the private sector company Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. who is not getting the subsidy, backed out from supplying filled cylinders to the consumers of consumerfed. There is an arbitration case filed by the Consumerfed against Shri Sakthi LPG Ltd. against their backing out from the contract. At the time of giving cooking gas connection Consumerfed had received Rs.5750/- from all the consumers including the complainant in this OP. Out of this amount Rs.5500/- was given to Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. and Rs.100/- to Primary Societies through which connection was availed and Consumerfed itself appropriated Rs.150/-. As per the agreement with the Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. they supplied two cylinders and one regulator to each consumers. The filled cylinders in a periodical manner were also supplied by Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. When Shri Shakthi LPG Ltd. abruptly stopped supplying filled cylinders, the Consumerfed was forced to open a plant at Palakkad to take care of its consumers. It was learnt that the Consumerfed are not allowed to supply filled cylinders in the cylinders supplied by Shri Shakti lpg Ltd. Accordingly Consumerfed had to purchase new cylinders and regulators based on government of India directions and supply the same to the consumers without collecting any additional amount even though thousands of Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. empty cylinders are lying idle at Primary Co-operatives. From the very date of supplying Cooking Gas, Consumerfed has been supplying it to the consumers incurring heavy loss. The public sector companies are now offering gas connection without much waiting. The connection fee is also made quite nominal. They get profit from other oil products. They have the privilege of subsidy too. This has resulted in a boom in the number of consumers preferring to cancel the gas connection with the Consumerfed. The complainant is also one among them. If the Consumerfed has to pay back the amount to the complainant and other such consumers, it is ultimately going to affect all the consumers of the Consumerfed who are buying products from the outlets of Triveni, Neethi Medical and Neethi Distribution Centres. Whatever expenditure Consumerfed incurs on account of refund of the connection fee will ultimately result in loss to the Consumerfed and this loss will have to be shouldered by all the consumers of Consumefed. The contention in the complaint that the opposite party had collected Rs.5750/- as deposit for L.P. gas connection is not correct. The amount was collected as connection fee only and never agreed to return this fee. <br /> <br /> 3. The respondents-3 and 4 filed counter to the effect that the case is not maintainable against them and they are unnecessary parties. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the sum of Rs.5750/-?<br /> (2) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P6. No other evidence produced from either side. <br /> <br /> 6. Point-1 & 2: Ext. P2 is the document explaining the conditions of connection. It shows that the amount of Rs.5750/-, which is the connection fee, is not refundable at any rate. At the same time these respondents assured in Ext. P2 that the rate of gas will be the same as charged by the Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation etc. But the Consumerfed violated this condition and charged Rs.400/- on 17.11.05 from the petitioner. Even in 2008, the public sector companies are charging below Rs.400/-. As per the offer made in Ext. P2 the Consumerfed has no right to violate the conditions. Only by attracting this offer the petitioner has taken the connection by paying Rs.5750/-. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of Consumerfed.<br /> <br /> 7. The contention of Consumerfed regarding subsidy and to penalise M/s. Shakti Gas not at all maintainable at this juncture. The Consumerfed is liable to return the amount of Rs.5750/- to the petitioner. But the petitioner has enjoyed the facility for years as per the agreed conditions. So the registration fee is exempted from payment. <br /> <br /> 8. The petitioner also prays for the excess amount charged on each cylinders. But there is no specification on the amount and no statement is put to arrive at a conclusion comparing the public sector companies. Hence this relief is disallowed. <br /> <br /> In the result, the petition is allowed and the Consumerfed is directed to return Rs.4750/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to the petitioner. It is further directed to provide Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 27th day of June 2008.<br />