Kerala

Kozhikode

359/06

LEELA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2008

ORDER


BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (Notice Under Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986)(No.68 of 1986)
KOZHIKODE
consumer case(CC) No. 359/06

LEELA
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

MANAGING DIRECTOR
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. LEELA

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By G. Yadunadhan, President: The complainant had obtained gas connection from the opposite party, Consumer Federation by remitting an amount of Rs.5750/-. When the opposite party failed to supply the refilled cylinders as and when required by the complainant, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the deposit amount. The complainant had written latter to opposite party to get back the deposit amount. As she did not get any reply, she had again requested for refund through Consumer Protection Samathi. In the reply to that letter the opposite party had agreed to return back Rs.2500/-, but the complainant states that they have deposited Rs.5750/- with the opposite party and now she is discontinuing because of the deficiency of opposite party. As opposite party was enabled to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when required by the complainant. Hence the complainant is seeking to get back the full deposit amount of Rs.5750/- from the opposite party. The opposite party filed a version stating that the petition is not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The amount cannot be refunded. There is no deficiency in service. The opposite party has filed a version in which they admit for giving connection to the complainant. But they have not stated the reason for not returning back the deposit amount. The only question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? Ext.A1 was marked on complainant’s side. It is proved that the complainant has obtained gas connection after depositing the amount of Rs.5750/- from opposite party. According to the complainant at the time of giving supply, the opposite party undertook to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when requested by the complainant. But according to the complainant opposite party failed to supply refilled gas cylinders as per her request. Hence she is seeking refund of the deposit amount. The opposite party contended that the deposit amount cannot be refunded. The opposite party has not made clear under what authority they have retained the amount. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the deposit amount of Rs.5250/-. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund of Rs.5250/- to the complainant and the complainant has to return back the cylinders and regulator to the opposite party. Pronounced in the open court this the 14th day of March 2008. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Letter dt. 29-7-06. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Sd/- President // True Copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT