SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

Filed on 24/04/2007 (Remanded Case)

The case remanded is by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  vide dated 6.4.2009.    Smt. Jayanthi 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 2^nd  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.  Parties  appeared before this Forum.  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 2^nd  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 2^nd opposite party.

3. 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.
4.  Issues (1) and (2):-     On the side of the complainant, she has produced  proof

affidavit  in support of his  contentions.  In the proof affidavit she has stated that an amount of Rs.6020/- is to be obtained from the 1^st  opposite party by way of deposit.  But she has not produced any documentary evidence.   The 1st opposite party has admitted the remittance of Rs.5750/- effected by the complainant at the time of giving the gas connection.   Out of this total amount, a sum of Rs.100/- was for the primary societies and a sum of Rs.150/- for consumer fed.  So after deducting a total sum of Rs.250/- from the deposited amount., the 1st opposite party has to refund Rs.5500/- to the complainant.   As per the direction of the Hon’ble CDRC., we have given sufficient chances to the opposite parties to adduce evidence.  But the opposite parties have not appeared before the Forum on the posting dates and not field any documents or version except the remittance of costs ordered by the Hon’ble CDRC.  The contention raised against the release of the deposit amount cannot be sustained, and the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount from the 1st opposite party.  The purposeful 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.5500/- (Rupees five thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant, together with a compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 1^st  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 1^st  opposite party to pay the said  amounts within one month from the date of receipt of this order and in case any default to pay the said amounts, the first opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 18% for the said amount of Rs.5500/- from the date of this order.
            Complaint allowed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of March, 2010.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-  Sri. K. Anirudhan:

Sd/-  Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                       Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-