KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANATHPURAM APPEAL .No. 418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED : 24.02.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Managing Director : APPELLANT Kerala State Co-Operative Consumer’s Federation Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020.. (By Advs.Sri.M.Sasindran & Bipin M.V.) Vs 1. The Consumer Protection Council of Kerala (Reg.No. Tvm.198/85), Santhinikethanam, Kottackakam, Mavelikara – 690 101. : RESPONDENTS (By Advs.Sri.K.G.M. Nair & Narayan R) Representing for and on behalf of : i. N.Bhaskaran, Punnamparambil, Thalavdy.P.O. ii. D.Purushothaman Pillai, Vaidhyasala Veedu, Thalavdy.P.O. iii. K.Radhakrishnan, Padinjaremadom, Thalavdy.P.O. iv. K.Muraleedharan, Thekkepparambil, Thalavdy.P.O. v. G.Rajappan, Kochupurackal, Thalavdy.P.O. vi. K.K.Thampy, Madathikkalathil, Kunthirickal.P.O. vii. Chacko George, Panavelil, Karikkuzhy.P.O. viii. T.N.Thankappan, Mamoottilchira, Thalavdy.P.O. ix. Leelamma Zacharia, Thadathil, Thalavdy.P.O., x. Jagadamma Sukumaram, Kochupurayil, Nerettupuram.P.O. 2. The Secretary Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.805, Neerettupuram.P.O. (By Adv.Sri.) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in the file of C.C.No.231/07 dated 28.09.2008. The appellant is the 1st opposite party who prefers this appeal from the above order passed by the Forum below. In short, the complainant is the Kerala Consumer Protection Council, Santhinikethanam, Kottackakam, Mavelikara , they alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There allegation is that the complainants had taken a gas connection from the 1st opposite party and it was through the 2nd opposite party. At the time of taking the gas connection, the opposite parties had agreed to supply gas for an amount of Rs.135/- for 12 kg gas cylinder. For the said gas connection, the 1st opposite party had collected a registration fee of Rs.500/- and a deposit amount of Rs.5250/- from the complainants and 1st opposite party had issued connection certificate along with a regulator and 2 gas cylinders through the 2nd opposite party. But the first opposite party had violated the agreement to supply the 12kg gas cylinder for Rs.135/-. The complainants had availed the supply of gas cylinder from the first opposite party after believing the undertaking given by them regarding the speedy availability of the cylinder and low rate compared to other firms. Since the first opposite party had violated the conditions in supply of gas cylinders, the complainants requested the first opposite party through the 2nd opposite party to return the deposited amount of Rs.5750/- through registered letter. But the opposite parties had not taken any earnest steps to return the deposited amount of Rs.5750/-. The 1st opposite party filed their version and contended that due to the continuous absence of the 2nd opposite party; they were set exparte. In the version of the 1st opposite party has stated that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum under section 69 of the Co-operative societies Act. They have entered into a contract with Shri.Sakthi LPG Ltd., for supplying filled cooking gas cylinders to delivering to the societies from where consumers availed cooking gas connection with them. The subsidy granted by the Govt. of India was denied for the gas sold though them. It resulted in a situation were they could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector companies without incurring heavy loss and that private sector company Shri.Sakthi LPG who is not getting the subsidy backed out for supplying filled gas cylinders to the consumers of consumerfed. It is further stated that they had received Rs.5750/- from all the consumers including complainants and that out of the total amount, an amount of Rs.5500/- was given to Shri.Sakthi LPG Ltd., and Rs.100/- for primary societies and they have appropriated a sum of Rs.150/- from the total amount. It is further stated that the basic cost, plus filling expenses and transportation to the various destination result in a very huge loss. In fact, they suffer a loss of approximately Rs.90/- for each cylinder, it deliver to the consumers. It is stated that they are not getting any subsidy from the Government of India. The allegation that they have paid Rs.500/- as registration fee and the balance of the Rs.5250/- as the security deposit is not true. It was denied on the whole amount of Rs.5750/- was the connection fee only. Hence the claim for returned of the same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless and illegality. The Forum below has raised two points. They are; 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Compensation and costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents in evidence and marked this documents as Ext.A1 series 13 Nos. and A1(14), A(15) and A1(16) marked. Ext.A1 is the circular issued by the 1st opposite party. This circular was the conditions of getting gas supply through Neethi Store. Other documentary evidence are also adduced by the complainant. Opposite party’s side there is no documentary evidence or oral evidence adduced after perusing the entire evidence the Forum below taken a view that the action of the part of the opposite party will come within the purview of gross inclines and unfair trade practice. The 1st opposite party was bound to release the deposited amount of Rs.5750/- each to the complainants in time. Any kind of denial of the release of the amounts is to be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. In the result, the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to return the deposited amount of Rs.5750/- each to the complainants together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of remittance of the same before the 1st opposite party and a compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- each to the complainants for their mental agony inconvenience and loss and a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission, both the appellant and respondents are represented through their counsels and the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and reliable to be set aside. The counsel for the respondent submitted that in a case having the same fact this Commission taken a view that the opposite parties are liable on responsible for the deficiency in service committed by them. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that it is maintainable as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is not legally sustainable. According to the Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act the Fora and Commissions is having after the jurisdiction to for easy and cost of justice. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
