IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2011.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No. 133/11 (Filed on 03.06.2011)

Between:

Thomas Mathew,

Mulappon Mannil House,

Nedumprayar, Maramon.P.O.,

Thiruvalla Taluk,

Pathanamthitta Dist.

(By Adv. Jacob Thomas)                                             …..    Complainant

And:

1. The Managing Director,

     Kerala State Co-op: Consumer-

     Federation Ltd., Gandhi Nagar,

     Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020.

2.  The Secretary,

      Regional Co-op: Bank No.595,

      Nedumprayar, Maramon.P.O.,

      Thiruvalla Taluk,

      Pathanamthitta Dist.

(By Adv. Lalu John)                                                    …..    Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of domestic Neethi LPG Gas supplied by the opposite parties from 18.9.98 and his registration No. is 10.  At the time of taking the connection, 2^nd opposite party collected an amount of ` 6,020 from the complainant by way of advance and opposite parties supplied gas cylinder till 2010 January.  Thereafter they have not supplied gas cylinder as against the terms of contract.  So the complainant demanded the return of advance deposit several time and lastly by registered notice dated 2.4.2011.  On getting the said notice, 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party sent a reply stating that 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party is solely responsible for the deposit amount and the non-supply of gas cylinder.  The failure in supply of gas cylinder caused irreparable injuries and loss to the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realization of the advance deposit amount of ` 6,020 with 12% interest along with compensation of ` 20,000 and cost of this proceedings. 

                   3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions.

                   4. The main contentions of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-  1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and they also admitted that they are not supplying gas cylinder to their customers.  They are supplying the gas cylinder supplied by Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.  But Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. abruptly stopped supply of gas cylinders.  The non-supply of gas cylinder was due to the above said reason.  The amount collected from the customers are given to Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.  When Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. stopped the supply of cylinder the 1^st opposite party opened a plant at Palakkad to take care of its consumers.  But it was failed due to certain legal problems.  The non-supply of gas cylinder to the customers is not due to any fault of the opposite parties and hence the 1^st opposite party is not liable to the complainant as they have not committed any deficiency in service.  Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. is responsible for the non-supply of gas cylinder and they are liable to the customers including the complainant.  If 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the advance deposit, it will affect even the existence of 1^st opposite party as they have thousands of customers.  With the above contentions, the 1^st opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   5. The main contentions of the 2^nd opposite party is that, 2^nd opposite party is only an agent of the 1^st opposite party and the amount collected from the complainant was given to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is not supplying gas cylinder and in that circumstance, 2^nd opposite party is not able to supply cylinder to the complainant.  So the 2^nd opposite party had not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant.  With the above contentions, 2^nd opposite party prays for exonerating 2^nd opposite party from the liability.

                   6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                   8. The Point:-  Complainant’s allegation is that he had availed the domestic gas connection of the opposite party by paying ` 6,020 on 18.9.98.  Accordingly, opposite parties supplied gas cylinders up to January 2010.  Thereafter they have stopped the supply of gas cylinder.  Thereafter complainant demanded for the money paid by him at the time of taking the connection.  But opposite parties evaded the payment.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.

                   9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the registered notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties demanding the deposit amount of ` 6,020 and compensation of `20,000.  Ext.A2 and A2(a) are the postal receipts of Ext.A1.  Ext.A3 is the reply notice dated 15.5.11 sent by the 2^nd opposite party in reply to Ext.A1 notice.

                   10. On the other hand, 1^st opposite party’s contention is that the non-supply of cylinders to their customers is not due to any willful fault of the opposite party and its so happened due to the fault of Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. as they have stopped the supply of cylinders from where the 1^st opposite party is getting cylinders.  When Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. stopped supply of cylinders, 1^st opposite party made certain efforts of thereown for the supply of gas cylinders to their customers.  But it is not materilised due to some legal problems.  They also admitted that they have received the deposit amount from the complainant.  On the basis of the above submission 1^st opposite party argued that they are not in a position to supply gas cylinders.  Further, they argued that if they are directed to return the advance deposit to their customers they have to face severe financial problems which may affect even the existence of the 1^st opposite party as they have thousands of customers.  With the above contentions, 1^st opposite party requested the Forum not to find any deficiency of service against them.  But they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence supporting their contentions. 

                   11. 2^nd opposite party’s contention is that they are only the agents of the 1^st opposite party and the non-supply of gas cylinders was due to the non-supply of cylinders by the 1^st opposite party.  They also admitted that they have collected ` 6,020 from the complainant as advance deposit and the said amount was given to the 1^st opposite party.  So they argued that they have not committed any deficiency of service and prayed for exonerating them from the liability.

                   12. In order to prove the contentions of the 2^nd opposite party, they have also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.  But they have cross-examined the complainant. 

                   13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties and on the basis of the materials on record it is seen that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the collection of advance deposit from the complainant and with regard to the non-supply of gas cylinders.  Both opposite parties claim that they have not committed any deficiency of service.  According to both opposite parties, the sufferings of the complainant is not due to the fault of the opposite parties and it is due to the fault of Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.  At the same time, opposite parties have no dispute against the complainant’s allegations.  The complainant, being the consumer of opposite parties, is not getting gas cylinders for the last 22 months.  The reason shown by the opposite parties for the non-supply of gas cylinder cannot be justified.  The argument of the 1^st opposite party that they are not in a position to return the advance deposit is also not sustainable.  Opposite parties are liable to supply gas cylinder.  Otherwise, they are bound to return the advance deposit.  Without supplying gas cylinders, opposite parties are not entitled to retain the advance deposit of the complainant.  So we find that the non-supply of gas cylinder as well as the non-refund of advance deposit are clear deficiency in service.  At the same time, the circumstance of this case shows that non-supply of cylinder is due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties.  Further opposite parties are public institutions established solely for the purpose of helping the public.  So we are exonerating their liability in that respect.  But they are liable for the complainant’s advance deposit.  Therefore, this complaint is allowable in part.

                   14. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part as follows:

                        (a) 2^nd opposite party is directed to return the advance 

                               deposit of ` 6,020 to the complainant within 15 days 

                               from the date of receipt of this order on surrendering the 

                               equipments of the opposite parties by the complainant.

(b)    1^st opposite party is directed to pay the said amount to 

       the 2^nd opposite party.

(c)      In the nature and circumstances of this case no orders 

      for compensation and cost.

(d)    In the event of non-compliance of this order by the 2^nd

       opposite party, complaint is allowed to realize ` 6,020 

        (Rupees Six Thousand and Twenty only) from 2^nd  

        opposite party with 10% interest from today till 

       the realization of the whole amount.

                         Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11^th day of October, 2011.

                                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                   (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the registered notice sent by the complainant to the  

             opposite parties. 

A2 &A2(a) :  Postal receipts of Ext.A1. 

A3     :  Reply notice dated 15.5.11 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the  

             complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Thomas Mathew, Mulappon Mannil House,Nedumprayar, 

                       Maramon.P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

       (2)  The Managing Director, Kerala State Co-op: Consumer 

                        Federation Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020.

        (3) The Secretary, Regional Co-op: Bank No.595, Nedumprayar, 

              Maramon.P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

        (4) The Stock File.