IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 31st day of July, 2010
Filed on 25/05/2007 (Remanded Case)
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 106/2007
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. C.B. Raghunadh 1. The General Manager
Chilambisseril Kerala State Co-operative
Muhamma P.O. Consumer Federation
Alappuzha – 688 525 Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam
Kochi – 682 020
2. The Secretary
Muhamma Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1670, Muhamma
O R D E R
SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)
Remanded against the order of this Forum dated 5.11.2008 as per the director of the Hon’ble CDRC dated 3.10.2008. The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contention of the complainant is that on 19.8.98, he has obtained a gas connection from M/s. Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd., Ernakulam through the Neethi Store, controlled by the Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Muhamma, after remitted an amount of Rs.6500/- for 2 gas cylinders, gas stove and regulator. The cylinder has the capacity of 12 kg. and the connection was obtained as per the paper notification. At the time of issuing connection the opposite parties agreed to supply gas below the price of M/s.Bharath gas, along with the reduced price as and when required. But contrary to that they have increased the price and issued the cylinder at the rate of Rs.499/- for 12 kg. The difference of price is nearly Rs.200/- as compared with the Bharath Gas. Since the complainant is unable to pay the increased price; he demanded back the deposited amount. The opposite party is willing repay an amount of Rs.2500/- only from the total amount. Complainant is not agreed with this condition and filed the complainant alleging deficiency in service and for a direction to refund the amount by the opposite party.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. But 1st opposite party not entered appearance before this Forum. 2nd opposite party entered appearance. Taking the continuous absence, 1st opposite party set exparte on 13.2.2008.
3. Even though the case has been remanded by the Hon’ble CDRC and direct the 1st opposite party file version if any adduce evidence, in the light of above order, Forum issue notice to the opposite parties, but opposite parties not turned up to the Forum and adduce any evidence.
4. The complainant has produced one document – Ext.A1 is the copy of the connection certificate No.18505 dt. 19.8.98 issued in favour of the complainant. It shows the details of cylinder and regulator. The 2nd opposite party has filed the detailed objection and filed 2 documents Exts.B1 and B2. In the objection, the 2nd opposite party has stated that the complainant has taken the agency from the first opposite party, through the 2nd opposite party, and 2nd opposite party has remitted the entire amount after deducting sum of Rs.112/- to the first opposite party. As such the 1st opposite party is entitled to repay the amount to the complainant.
5. Document Ext.B1 is the original circular dt. 28.8.98 issued by the first opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. It shows the details of connection fee of Rs.5250/- and its mode of remittance and other details of cylinder commission. Ext.B2 is the letter dt. 18.12.06 issued by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party regarding the sales.
6 . Considering the contentions of the 2nd opposite party, this Forum raised the the issue whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
7. The wife of the complainant has examined. She has stated that they have remitted the amount before the 2nd opposite party and they have not issued any receipt for the remittance. The 1st opposite party has increased the price of gas cylinder on several occasions. Due to the increase in price the complainant was not intended to continue the service of the first opposite party. So the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to return the deposited amount. Instead of paying the deposited amount, 1st opposite party denied the same with baseless contentions. The first opposite party is liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant and they have not disputed the deposit amount. Thus the denial of the release of the deposited amount to the complainant will come under the purview of deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Issue is found in favour of the complainant. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, we direct the 1st opposite party to return the deposited amount of Rs.6500/- (Rupees six thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant along with a compensation amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for mental agony and a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only). We further direct the 1st opposite party to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2009.
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mini Reghunadh (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the connection certificate
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - P.Radhamony (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Circular dated 28.8.1998
Ext.B2 - Letter dated 18.12.2006
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:-
