BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT.S .K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P. No. 402/2003 Filed on 06..10..2003<br /> Dated: 16..06..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> 1.Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodungannoor- P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.<br /> <br /> 2.A. Jagbarddheen, Al.Hamdhulillahi Manzil, Plavila, T.B.Jn., Neyyattinkara – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 121.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1. Muthaleef, Nisa Traders, Alummoodu, Neyyattinkara.<br /> Addl. 2nd opp. Party:<br /> 2.Feena Petro Products Ltd., 37, Karpaga Vinayakar Koil Street, Alander, Chennai – 600 -16.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. K.G. Rajagopalan Nair<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30..09..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 13..05..2008, the Forum on 16..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The 2nd complainant Sri. A. Jagbarddheen has taken a Feena LP Gas connection from the 1st opposite party on 31..08..1996. For the said connection he had paid an amount of Rs.3,825.25/-. The 2nd opposite party is Feena Petro Products. The 1st opposite party terminated their business without any notice to the complainant. Due to that reason the complainant had to some difficulties for cooking. No where in Neyyattinkara any other agency of Feena gas. The 1st opposite party further started another business at Neyyattinkara named as Nissa Traders. The 2nd complainant several times approached the 1st opposite party to make alternate arrangement for getting gas or otherwise refund the deposit amount. On 11..09..2003 the 2nd complainant sent a notice to the 1st opposite party through the 1st complainant – Consumer Vigilance Centre. But the 1st opposite party did not turned up to settle the matter. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the redressal of his grievances.<br /> 2. The 1st opposite party in this case filed version. The main contention of their version is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Feena Petro Products is the dealer of Feena gas is a necessary party in this case. He also stated that the Nissa Traders never been in the field of gas supply. For that reason only the complaint can be dismissed. The 1st opposite party supplied gas promptly to the 2nd complainant till 1998. In 1998 onwards due to the improper supply of filled gas cylinders from the 2nd opposite party the 1st opposite party decided to stop the agency and they informed the matter all their consumers including the 2nd complainant and also affixed notice in the office notice board. And also they contended that they are not liable to refund the deposit amount to the consumers, since the deposited amounts are with the custody of the 2nd opposite party. And also the 1st opposite party stated that the 2nd opposite party appointed the Travancore Gas Agency, Karamana in their agents and the 2nd complainant had taken delivery from there from 1999 onwards. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.<br /> 3. In this case from the complainant's side produced 5 documents and he has been filed affidavit for chief examination. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and produced 4 documents.<br /> 4.The following points are raised for trial:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?<br /> (iii)Whether opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable?<br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii): The complainant has been produced 5 documents. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the Enayam Gas Agency for Rs. 65.25 the price of the lighter. Ext.P2 is the bill for Rs. 1,830/- for purchased LP Gas Cylinder, Regulator, Tube, Steel Oven and service charge. Ext.P3 is the receipt of Rs.3,825.25/-, the total amount paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.P4 is the receipt of gas connection signed by the complainant and 1st opposite party. Ext.P5 is the copy pf notice issued by the 1st complainant to the 1st opposite party.<br /> 6. The 1st opposite party has been produced 4 documents. Ext.D1 is the copy of application form, Ext.D2 is the copy of page No.19 of the Accounts Register, Ext.D3 is the copy of letter dated 19th August 1998 and Ext. D4 is the acknowledgment letter dated 21..08..1998.<br /> 7. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party unilaterally stopped the supply of gas without notice and even making alternate arrangements and thereby he and his family members suffered a lot for cooking food. And also they alleges that the 1st opposite party stopped their business without giving intimation to the consumers. The opposite parties contended that that they had intimated that matter through telephonically all their customers including the 2nd complainant and also they affixed notice in their office notice board. But the 1st opposite party had no evidence to substantiate it. The complainant demanded to refund Rs.1,800/- the deposit amount, Rs. 290/- the cost of gas cylinder and registration fee and D.D fee Rs.30/- from the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party denied this claim and he argued that as per the terms and conditions between them, they are not liable to refund any amount. The 1st opposite party produced the copy of terms and conditions which was marked as Ext.D1. As per the terms and conditions, surrender value of the connection shall be as follows:- “In the first year Rs.1,500/- in the 2nd year Rs. 750/-, in the 3rd year and above Rs.450/-. In this case the complainant has taken connection on 1996 and the 1st opposite party stopped their business in 1998. Hence as per terms and conditions of the purchase the complainant is liable to get Rs.750/- from opposite parties. But this Forum carefully examined all the documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties. From the perusal of the recorded evidence this Forum concludes that, the Ext.D1 document is not a reliable one. In this document the complainant or the opposite parties were not signed, it is only a photocopy. Hence the terms and conditions of Ext.D1 is not admissible. It is a settled position that meeting of minds is essential and in the absence of meeting of mind any term would not be part of the contract and ordinary liability would flow in the instant case of deficiency in service. In this case the 1st opposite party terminated their business without notice to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant and his family member had to face difficulties for cooking food. It is the duty of the 1st opposite party to inform the matter earlier to the complainant, if they do so the complainant has to make alternate arrangements. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 1,800/- and the cost of the regulator Rs. 290/- to the complainant. Considering all the aspects of the case and evidence on record in our opinion an amount of Rs.500/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice.<br /> In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.1,800/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) the deposit amount and Rs. 290/- (Rupees two hundred and ninety only) the cost of the regulator to the complainant and also pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation to the complainant. And also pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of the complaint. The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum if not paid within two months of this order.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of June, 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> OP.No.402/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> II. Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Photocopy of cash bill receipt dated 31..08..1996 for Rs. 65.25/-<br /> <br /> P2 : Photocopy of cash bill receipt dated 31..08..1996 for Rs.1830/-<br /> P3 : Photocopy of receipt for Rs.3825/-<br /> <br /> P4 : Photocopy of receipt of gas connection and consumer card dated 31..08..1996<br /> <br /> P5 : Photocopy of notice issued by the 1st complainant to the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> III.Opposite parties witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties documents:<br /> <br /> D1 : Photocopy of application form<br /> D2 : Photocopy of page No.19 of the Accounts Register.<br /> D3 : Photocopy of letter dated 19th August 1998 issued by the opposite party<br /> D4 : Photocopy of reply letter dated 21st August 1998.<br /> <br /> ad. PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />