Kerala

Kollam

CC/08/278

Treesa, Kottappurathu Veedu, Thekkumbhagom Muri, Thekkumbhagom Village, Chavara South.P.O., Kollam - 691 584 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Limited and Other - Opp.Party(s)

Kattoor M.Krishnakumar

31 Jul 2009

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/278

Treesa, Kottappurathu Veedu, Thekkumbhagom Muri, Thekkumbhagom Village, Chavara South.P.O., Kollam - 691 584
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Limited and Other
Thekkumbhagom Service Co-Operative Bank
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

            The complaint is filed for refund of advance deposit Rs.5500/- and compensation along with cost.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant has availed Neethi Gas connection from the 1st opp.party through Neethi Store conducted by 2nd opp.party on deposit of Rs.5500/-.   From the beginning itself opp.parties defaulted in the regular supply of cooking gas.   The opp.parties are collecting exorbitant charges for refills than the gas supplied by other gas companies.   There is inordinate delay in refilling also.

 

          In these circumstances the complainant sent notice to the opp.parties demanding refund of advance deposit and cancellation of gas connection as she has not interested  to continue as a consumer of opp.parties..  1st opp.party sent a reply notice stating that there is no provision for refund of advance deposit and expressing their willingness to refund Rs.2500/- if the complainant sent a signed full and final settlement deed along with a letter from the Secretary of 2nd opp.party stating that the regulator, cylinder and consumer book were refunded.   The act of opp.parties  amounts deficiency in service.  No agreement was executed at the time of granting gas connection and the complainant has every right to get full amount of advance deposit Rs.5500/-

          The 1st opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   As the consumer fed is not a public company dealing with petroleum products it had to depend upon pvt. Gas companies for purchase of bulk gas.   Subsidy was not granted to the 1st opp.party by the Government of India Consumer Fed could  not sell.  Cooking gas at the price for which other gas companies were selling cooking gas.   The 1st opp.party entered into a contract with  Sakthi LPG gas agency but later on they have backed out from the contract.  An arbitration case was filed by the 1st opp.party against  Sakthi LPG  Agency.   The consumerfed appropriated only Rs.150/- , Rs.5500/- was given to the Sakthi Gas agency.  1st opp.party sustained heavy loss of many crores of rupees as they were forced to open a new plant and had to purchase new regulators and cylinders.   There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties and Sakthi LPG agency should be penalized.   The complaint is to be dismissed.

 

          During the pendency of the case the complainant expired.  Legal representatives of deceased impleaded as per order in IA No.174/09.

 

          The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party

2.     Compensation and cost.

 

Affidavit filed by the Power holder of complainants.  PW.1 examined.   Exts.P1 to P7 were marked.

No oral evidence adduced by the opp.parties

 

Points 1 and 2

 

     There is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of opp.parties.   The allegation of the complainant is that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.   Exorbitant price is charged and there is undue delay for refilling.  Therefore the complainant is not  interested to continue as a consumer of opp.parties.  Though the 1st opp.party would contend in the version that there is no deficiency in service, no evidence was adduced to establish that contention.   The opp.party did not cross examined the complainant.   Therefore the evidence adduced by the complainant  stands unimpeached.

 

     In these circumstances we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.

     We have perused the documents carefully and find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party.   The points found accordingly.

 

     In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opp.party to refund the advance deposit Rs.5500/- after canceling the LPG connection of opp.parties.   The 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost.   The complainant will return the Gas cylinder and regulator to the 1st opp.party through 2nd opp.party on getting refund of the advance deposit.

 

     The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.

 

      Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009.

 

                                                                              .

I N D E X

 

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Certificate

P2. –Advocate notice

P3. –Postal receipt

P4. – Under certificate posting

P5. – Reply notice

P6. – Order copy of C.C.No.401/2006

P7. –Power Attorney