K.ENI. filed a consumer case on 14 May 2008 against M/S.HASSAN GROUP AGENCIES in the Malappuram Consumer Court. The case no is OP/06/29 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Malappuram
OP/06/29
K.ENI. - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S.HASSAN GROUP AGENCIES - Opp.Party(s)
14 May 2008
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MALAPPURAM consumer case(CC) No. OP/06/29
K.ENI.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/S.HASSAN GROUP AGENCIES SHRI.SAKTHI LPG LTD
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. On 11-7-1998 complainant availed domestic LPG Connection from opposite parties on payment of Rs.2000/- as deposit, Rs.750/- as installation charges, Rs.1500/- for stove and Rs.120/- for lighter. Complainant received refill cylinders till 2005 and alleges that opposite parties failed to supply gas thereafter. Complainant was put to much hardships and inconveniences. He prays for refund of Rs.4,350/- paid at the time of taking connection and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 2. First opposite party filed version admitting that LPG connection was provided to complainant. It is submitted that 1st opposite party is only an agent of 2nd opposite party and that second opposite party provided connections and the ancillary equipments on loan basis to customers. The deposit amount was also collected by second opposite party. The responsibility of first opposite party was only to collect the amounts on behalf of second opposite party from customers. It is further admitted that from 2005 onwards the supply of refilled cylinders to customers became impossible due to non-supply of cylinders by second opposite party. Non supply of cylinders was purely beyond the control of first opposite party and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. Notice to second opposite party was served. He was absent and set exparte on 05-9-07. In fact a prior notice was issued to both opposite parties on 06-5-06, which was also served on both opposite parties. On behalf of second opposite party Vakkalath was filed on 19-6-06 by Counsel. T.L.Sreeram Advocate, Thiruvananthapuram. Due to vacancy in the post of President in 2003 there was no sitting of this Forum at that time. The case was being adjourned to different dates from the office. When the case first came up before us on 18-7-07 notice was again issued to both opposite parties. After receiving this second notice, second opposite party has opted to remain absent and did not file any version. Therefore he was proceeded exparte. 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant and first opposite party. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties. 4. The admitted facts are that complainant availed a domestic LPG connection with opposite parties and that from July, 2005 onwards opposite parties failed to supply refill cylinders. First opposite party contends that it was only an agent of second opposite party to collect the amounts on behalf of second opposite party and that the contractual liability is between complainant and second opposite party. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by second opposite party to complainant. On the reverse side of Ext.A1 the terms and conditions are stated, which proves that second opposite party had full control of providing gas connections and supply of cylinders to customers. From Ext.A1 we find that no joint or several liability can be attributed upon 1st opposite party. We hold that the act of second opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 1st opposite party is exonerated from liability. 5. Complainant prays for refund of Rs.4,350/- which was paid at the time of taking connection, and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Ext.A1 receipt is issued for Rs.1,600/- as refundable deposit. Therefore complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,600/-. The amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and inflated. We consider that an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and hardships would serve justice to complainant. 6. In the result, we partly allow this complaint and order second opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred only along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) together with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within two months from the date of this order. Dated this 14th day of May, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4 Ext.A1 : Deposit Voucher for Rs.1,600/- dated, 11-7-08 by first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A2 : Receipt for Rs.750/- dated, 11-7-'98 from first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.400/- dated, 11-7-'98 from first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A4 : Cash bill for Rs.285/- dated, 11-7-'98 by first opposite party to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................AYISHAKUTTY. E ......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.