Kerala

Kannur

CC/218/2013

M.Chandrika - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Kerala State Co-Op.Consumer Federation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2013

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/218/2013
 
1. M.Chandrika
Kalppalli House,Velam,P.O.Mayyil,Pin.670602,Ph:9495622210.
Kannur
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Managing Director,Kerala State Co-Op.Consumer Federation Ltd.
Gandhi Nagar,Eranakulam-682020
Eranakulam
Kerala
2. Secretary
Mayyil Service Co-Operative Bank,P.O.Mayyil-670602.
Kannur
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

DOF.29-07-2013

DOO.03-09-2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

 

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

 

                            Dated this, the   3rd   day of  September    2013

 

C.C.No.218 /2013

M.Chandrika,

Kappalli House,

Velam, P.o.Mayyil 670 602

                                                                           Complainant

 

1    Managing Director,

      Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation,              

      Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.

 

 2.   Secretary,                                                      Opposite parties

       Mayyil  Service co.op. Bank,

       P.O.Mayyil. 670 602.

 

 

          O R D E R

 

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant has taken cooking gas connection from the opposite parties. At the time of taking the connection he has paid Rs.5750/-. 2nd opposite party/Bank promised the complainant to refund the same at the time when the connection happened to be surrendered. The cooking gas distribution by the opposite parties later on became irregular and the quality also deteriorated. When it was complained to 2nd  opposite party they answered that 1st   opposite party is  responsible for the same. Because of these reasons complainant surrendered the connection demanding to refund the amount of Rs.5750/-. But the amount was not refunded by them. Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice opposite parties sent their version but did not make appearance.

The version of  1st  opposite party admitted the facts but blamed each other for the faults happened to be taken place resulting in the stoppage of distribution of cooking gas.

1st   opposite party has also explained  the  social activities and their services to the consumers during the  last several years  as they were dealing with the distribution of domestic goods and prayed considering those aspect  to  dismiss the case against  them penalizing   Koldy Petroleum who allegedly stopped supply of cooking gas abruptly.

          The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and marked Exts.A1  on her side.

          The main issue to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties.

          The evidence adduced by complainant including Ext.A1 receipt issued by the 2nd  opposite party  as the receipt receiving the cylinders and regulator goes to show that the complainant has deposited   Rs.5750/- at the time of taking cooking gas connection and she had surrendered two cylinders and one regulator at the time of surrendering the connection. It is an admitted fact that complainant had paid the amount. Opposite parties have no cases that the amount is refunded. The available evidence makes it certain that the distribution of cooking gas was stopped and complainant has no other way except surrendering the same. It is evident that there is increase in price and failure of distribution of gas which amounts to deficiency in service in the joint venture of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.5750/- deposited by the complainant. No cost is ordered considering the peculiar situation and thus the issue is answered partly in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

 

                                         Sd/-

                                        President 

 

 

 

 

           

 

                             

                                             APPENDIX

 

Exhibits for the complainant

 

A1& A2.Certificates dated   13.04.13 issued by OP 

 

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

 

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

 

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

 

                                                                /forwarded by order/

 

 

 

                                                                   Senior Superintendent                                              

 

 

         

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K]
PRESIDENT

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.