Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/10/113

Anilkumar.K.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Madona Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2010

ORDER


C.D.R.F, KasargodDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, OLD SP OFFICE BUILDING, PULIKUNNU, KASARAGOD
CONSUMER CASE NO. 10 of 113
1. Anilkumar.K.M.S/o.Narayani.K.M., Achus Nivas, Anandashram.Po.KasaragodKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Manager, Madona Gas AgencyKanhangadKasaragodKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 31 Jul 2010
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.

D.o.F:17/5/10

D.o.O: 31/7/10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.113/10

                        Dated this, the 31st    day of July 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                             : MEMBER 

 

 

Anilkumar.K.M,

S/o Narayani.K.M,

Achu Nivas, Anandashram PO,                             :Complainant

Kasaragod

(in person)

 

Manager

Madonna Gas Agencies,                                         : Opposite party

Kanhangad.

(Exparte)

 

                                                                              ORDER

 

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ        : PRESIDENT

 

 

  The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party refused to release the gas connection to his mother Narayani when he approached with his mother on 15/5/10 on the ground that he refused to purchase the gas stove from opposite party.  Therefore complaint claiming a compensation of  ` 10,000

2.  In response to the notice opposite party appeared and filed a statement that the connection is provided to the complainant on 23/6/10 and the matter is settled.  Hence notice is issued to complainant for verifying the veracity of the statement filed by opposite party  and the case is adjourned to 16/7/10 on that day complainant appeared before the Forum and submitted that the matter is not settled as stated by opposite party in his statement though he received the gas connection .  Opposite party remained absent on that day and no version filed.  Hence opposite party had to be set exparte.

3.   Complainant examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1   the copy of the communication letter dt.28/4/10.  Complaint heard.

4.  Complainant deposed that the opposite party refused to release  his gas connection since he declined to purchase gas stove from them.  He further deposed that though the connection is received on 23/6/10 the matter is  not settled with opposite party and what is stated in the statement filed by opposite party is not correct.

5.  The complaints regarding the deficiency in services and restrictive trade practices against gas agencies are widespread.  This complaint is one of the best example of such a restrictive trade practice as defined U/S 2(1)(nnn)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by him.

    Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay  ` 10,000/-  to the complainant ( though the gas connection is released in the name of his mother) by way of compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered to him and to his mother Narayani on account of non release of gas connection when they approached  to avail the  gas connection in response to the communications sent by opposite party .  Opposite party  also liable to pay cost of  `` 2000/- .  Opposite party further directed to refrain from this type of restrictive trade practice and any complaints in future about such restrictive trade practice will be dealt  severely.  Time for compliance is  limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Failing which opposite party shall further liable to pay interest @12% per annum for  ` 10,000/-  from the date of complaint till payment.

Sd/                                                                                   Sd/                                             Sd/

MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

Ext.A1-  dt.28/4/10 the copy of the communication letter

PW1-Anilkumar-K.M. complainant

Sd/                                                                                           Sd/                                                     Sd/

MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

eva

 

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 


HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, MemberHONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENTHONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member