Sri..K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint filed seeking a direction to the opp.party for cancellation of LPG connection and to refund Rs.5500/- deposited by the complainant as security deposit for Neethi Gas connection. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is consumer No 22151 of the opp.party. The complainant attracted by the offer of the opp.party that instant LPG connection will be provided for Rs.5500/- deposited the above sum and took the LPG gas connection. The payment of Rs.5500/- was made through the 2nd opp.p;arty. The supply of the LPG refill was net at all satisfactory. There is inordinate delay in providing refills. Exorbitant charge is also levied for refills compared to the gas supplied by the other agencies. Due to the deficiency in service the complainant is not interested in continuing as a consumer of the opp.party. The complainant issued an advocate notice requesting to cancel the LPG connection and to refund the security deposit of Rs.550/- . But the opp.parties did not refund the amount and hence the complaint. The 2nd opp.party was set exparte. However the 1st opp.party has filed a version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable under section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, that LPG connection was provided to the complainant by the opp.party collecting Rs.5500- at a time when there was inordinate delay for getting LPG connection, that out of it Rs.5500/- was given to Sri Sakthi LPG Ltd with whom the first opp.party has entered into an agreement for supply of refills, that the said Sri Sakthi LPG Ltd abruptly stopped their business with the result that the opp.party could not supply the refill in time, that there is no deficiency in service or delay in supplying refills, that the amount collected cannot be refunded and that therefore the complaint may be dismissed. The Points that would arise for consideration are 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1is examined. Ext.P1 to P7 are marked. No evidence is adduced by the opp.parties Points 1 and 2 As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the opp.party. The contention of the complainant is that there is deficiency in service. There is inordinate delay in supply of refills and exorbitant price is charged for the refills. Therefore he does not want to continue as a consumer of the opp.parties. Though the first opp.party would contend in the version that there is no delay in supply of refills or deficiency in service, no evidence was adduced to establish that contentions. The opp.parties did not even cross examine the complaint. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unimpeached. In these circumstances we are constrained to find that there is deficiency in service or the part of the opp.party and the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed for. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to refund the security deposit of Rs.5500/- to the complainant after canceling the LPG connection. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation. The complainant will return the gas cylinders and the regulator to the opp.party on getting the refund of the security deposit. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 18th day of July, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Bijith Joseph List of documents for the complainant P1. – Certificate dated 25..10.2007 P2. – Advocate notice P3. – Postal receipt P4. – Under certificate of posting P5. – Reply notice P6. – Copy of judgement | 
