IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 31st day of July, 2010
Filed on 24/04/2007 (Remanded Case)
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 186/2007
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. S. Vasumathy 1. The Managing Director
Sreebhavan, Mahadevikad P.O. Kerala State Co-operative
Karthikappally, Alappuzha Dt. Consumer Federation
(By Adv. Chaithanya Beno) Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam
Kochi – 682 020
2. The Secretary
Mahadevikad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1857 Mahadevikad P.O.
Karthikappally
O R D E R
SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)
Remanded against the order of this Forum dated 10.12.2008 as per the direction of the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 20.10.2008. Smt. Vasumathi has filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the contentions of the complainant is as follows:- Believing the statements of the Gas service offered by the opposite parties, the complainant has taken a gas connection through the 2nd opposite party and she has remitted the deposit amount and fees for regulator. The 2nd opposite party has supplied the goods, after collected the same from the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties have enhanced the price of gas on several times. At the time of enhancement of price of the cylinder the complainant has decided to terminate the service of the opposite party and entrusted the gas cylinder along with the regulator to the 2nd opposite party and requested to return the deposit amount of Rs.6020/- which was deposited by the complainant earlier. It is contended that the opposite parties have earlier agreed to release the deposit amount at the desire of the complainant. But the opposite parties have not returned the deposit amount in spite of several repeated requests. Since there was no positive response on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and for compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties again as per the rules of CDRC. In the version filed by the opposite parties earlier, the 1st opposite party has stated that, at the time of giving cooking gas connection, they had received Rs.5750/- from all the consumers including the complainant. It is stated that out of the above amount Rs.5500/- was given to M/s.Sakthi LPG Ltd. and Rs. 100/- to primary societies through which connection was availed and 1st opposite party itself appropriated Rs.150/-. It is further stated that the whole amount of Rs.5750/- was the connection fee only and in that circumstances the claim for refund of the same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless. In the version of the second opposite party, they have stated that as per the direction of the first opposite party they have supplied the gas connection through Neethi Store, which was controlled by them. It is stated that the price of the gas was enhanced by the decision of the Director Board of the Federation, and for the denial of the release of the deposit amount the 2nd opposite party is not at all liable. It is further stated that first opposite party Consumer Federation had collected a sum of Rs.5750/- from the complainant and that the 1st opposite party is to return the deposit amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
3. After remanded the case, Forum issued the notice to the opposite parties. But they have not turned up to the Forum and not adduce any evidence.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum raised the issues:-
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Compensation and costs.
5. Issues (1) and (2):- On the side of the complainant, she has produced proof
affidavit in support of her contentions and Exts.A1 to A8 marked. In the proof affidavit she has stated that an amount of Rs.6020/- is to be obtained from the 1st opposite party by way of deposit. But she has not produced any documentary evidence.
6. The 1st opposite party has admitted the remittance of Rs.5750/- effected by the complainant at the time of giving the gas connection. The complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount from the 1st opposite party. The denial of the release of deposited amount will come within the purview of the deficiency in service and negligence. The issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed. So we direct the 1st opposite party to return Rs.5750/- (Rupees five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant, together with a compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party by way willful refusal to pay back the deposited amount and a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for this proceedings. We further direct the 1st opposite party to pay the said amounts 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:-
Ext.A1 - LPG Consumer book
Ext.A2 - Cash Bills 2 Nos.
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 15.5.2007
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 21.5.2007
Ext.A5 - Photo copy of the application dated 14.2.2007
Ext.A6 - Postal receipt
Ext.A7 - Photo copy of the notice
Ext.A8 - Registration form of gas connection
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared y
