1. Consumerfed2. Valappad Service Co operative Bank
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. K.K. Mukundan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that as per the advertisement given by the respondents, complainant had applied for a new gas connection on 27.3.98 by paying Rs.500/- as advance to the 2nd respondent. On 18.4.98 the balance amount of Rs.5250/- was also paid. Complainant had got two cylinders. But the non-availability of the filled cylinders made the petitioner to apply for cancellation of the connection. Both the cylinders and regulator were returned, but the amount not returned. Hence this complaint. 2. The first respondent called absent and was set exparte. 3. The counter of 2nd respondent is that 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 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. 4. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service? (2) Is the complainant is entitled for the amount sought? (3) Reliefs and costs. 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P5 No other evidence submittedfrom either side. 6. Point No.1: Ext. P1 and P2 are the receipts of payment. There is no document from the respondents to show that complainant is not entitled for refund. Ext. P3 is a certificate by which it can be realized that the amount paid in the 2nd respondent Bank has sent to first respondent. There is nothing to think otherwise. Hence first respondent is liable to return the amount. Exts. P4 and P5 made it clear that the amount is liable to be refunded. The regulator and cylinders were taken from the complainant. The amount not refunded. The defence of the first respondent is their inability of refund. They did not defend that they are not liable. They say that if the amount is granted almost all the consumers may request for refund of the connection fee and in such a situation all the working capital of the consumerfed will not be sufficient to pay back the amount. They blamed Shri Shakthi L.P.G. Ltd. The first respondent contended that the cooking gas connection documents were issued under their name and style and they are liable to refund. But no evidence before us to impose a liability upon Shri Shakthi L.P.G. Ltd. First respondent failed to establish their case. There is deficiency in service on the part of first respondent. 7. Points-2 & 3: The complainant got connection in the year 1998. Only on 2006 January she had applied for cancellation of connection. Till that she had enjoyed the connection. So she is not entitled for the compensation and interest. 8. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the first respondent is directed to return Rs.5750/- (Rupees five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant. Also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 25th day of August 2008.
