KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 317/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 04.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 43/2015 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Rejitha Menon, Licensee, Sree Vinayaka Indane Services, North Nada, Kodungalloor-680 664.

 (By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Secretary (C.S. Thilakan), Applicants and Consumers Forum, Reg. 526196, Lakshmi Watch House, East Nada, Kodungalloor-680 664.

(By Adv. Abdulla N.M.)

2. Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indane Area Office, 2^nd Floor, PMK Towers, Civil Station Road P.O., Wayanad Road, Kozhikode-673 020.

(By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the second opposite party in C.C. No. 44 of 2015 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (will be referred to as District Commission as short).   On 28.10.2014 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to return     Rs. 2,170/- to Sri Vijayakumar and to issue a fresh subscription voucher in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased customer along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.   The first opposite party was directed to remit Rs. 10,000/- to the legal benefit fund as punitive cost and compensation for deficiency in service.  Being aggrieved by the above order this appeal has been filed.

2.  The case of the complainant in short is stated below:

The complainant is a Registered Association by name “Applicants and Consumer Forum” Kodungalloor represented by its Secretary.  One of the members of the Association had applied for the transfer of gas connection which was in the name of his mother who expired.  While ordering the transfer of gas connection a sum of Rs. 2,170/- was collected towards security deposit being the difference between the deposit already made and the amount required to be made after the transfer.  According to the complainant no amount could be collected towards deposit if the transfer is to be made in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased subscriber.  The collection of the aforesaid amount is illegal and against the direction of the Central Petroleum Ministry.  Though several communications were sent to the opposite parties the amount was not refunded.  The act of the 2^nd opposite party, the gas agency, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

3.  The first opposite party, Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation remained ex parte.  The second opposite party filed a version with the following contentions:-

The complaint is not maintainable as the real complainant is not made as a party to the complaint.  The procedure adopted in respect of the transfer of gas connection is proper.  There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in respect of the transfer of gas connection.

4.  Complainant had filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Exts. P1 to P23 were marked.  The second opposite party also filed affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B3.

5.  In the appeal memorandum it is contended that the subscriber shall deposit the amount in accordance with the Corporation’s Tariff which fact does find a place in the rear portion of Ext. P7.  According to the appellant, as per the guidelines issued during the relevant period, if a subscriber dies his surviving legal heir can seek for transfer of the connection in his favour on remitting the difference in the deposit after furnishing an indemnity bond, death certificate and legal heirship certificate.  The change in the guideline had come into force only on 20.11.2012.  So there is no illegality in collecting the amount.

6.  Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent.  Perused the records received from the District Commission.

7.  The first objection is that the complaint is not maintainable as the aggrieved consumer is not a party to the proceedings.  This complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The definition to "complainant" in section 2(b)(ii) stipulates that any voluntary consumer association registered under any law could be construed as the "complainant".  Ext. P1 is the bye-law of the Association.  Ext. P20 is the copy of the Certificate of Registration issued by the Registrar of the Travancore -Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955.  Ext. P19 is the decision taken by the members of the Association regarding the appointment of the complainant as the President of the Association.  These documents would prove the competence of the complainant Association in filing a complaint.  Ext. P3 is the petition filed by the aggrieved person to the Secretary of the Association for causing initiation of legal action against the opposite parties.  These documents would establish that the Complainant is a Registered Voluntary Consumer Association.  Therefore the objection raised by the appellant regarding the competence of the complainant to file the complaint is found as untenable.

8.  Ext. P2 is the copy of the death certificate of the original subscriber which proves that the subscriber had died on 27.10.1996.  Ext. P15 is the information furnished by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act that no deposit could be insisted on the death of the subscriber if an application for transfer is sought for by members of the family.  Ext. P11 is a letter issued by the Taluk Supply Officer, Kodungallur that the gas agency cannot collect any amount as deposit on the demise of the subscriber if any member of the family of the deceased applies for transfer of the gas connection.

9.  The evidence on record would establish that the collection of deposit by the second opposite party is against the guidelines issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation.  The opposite party was not ready to correct the unlawful act by refunding the cash collected unauthorisedly despite several communications issued in this regard.  The deficiency of service and unfair trade practice stand established.  Therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of the District Commission.

10.  The conduct of the opposite party in extracting money from the consumers by unlawful means deserves stringent measures.  We find that the District Commission had passed adequate compensation proportionate to the gravity of the act done by the appellant.  Therefore we affirm the order of the District Commission.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The appellant shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the 1^st respondent/complainant.

At the time of filing the appeal, the appellant has deposited Rs. 6,100/-.  The 1^st respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount, on filing proper application to be adjusted/credited towards the amount due to him from the appellant/2^nd opposite party.  

            AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb