D.O.F. 22.02.2011
D.O.O. 26.07.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011.
C.C.No.64/2011
K.P. Beebi,
W/o. Mammooty P.
Kutialipurath House, : Complainant
Tilanur, P.O. Thazhe Chovva,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Haridas Thaikkandy)
1. The Secretary,
Kappad Service Co-opertive Bank,
P.O. Kappad, Kannur.
2. The Secretary, : Opposite parties
Kerala State Co-operative Consumer
Federation Ltd.,
Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam.
Cochin – 682 020
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of ` 11,500/- with interest @ 12% and to pay the cost of this proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : As per the scheme of opposite party No.2 complainant availed gas connection through Neethi store coming under Co-operative Bank. Opposite party bank collected ` 5,750 from the complaint on 09.09.1999 for the cooking gas connection. Opposite party increased the price of cooking gas unreasonably later on. The quantity of gas also reduced. So complainant had declined to continue her connection from Neethi gas and she had surrendered the gas cylinder as early as 23.07.2009 to 1st opposite party. But opposite parties are not ready to refund the amount. Lawyer notice issued on 25.08.2009 calling upon to refund the amount. Reply was send acknowledging their willingness to refund only ` 2,500. It was not acceptable. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice 2nd opposite party sent version but both opposite parties No.1 and 2 remained absent throughout.
The version filed by 2nd opposite party states thus : Consumerfed had received ` 5,750 at the time of giving cooking gas connection from all the consumers including the complainant. Consumerfed depended on Koldy Petroleum India Ltd upon a contract for supplying filled cooking gas cylinders to deliver to societies from where consumers availed cooking gas. At that time the price of the bulk gas was more or less the same in public and private sector. The Government of India denied the privilege of subsidy for the gas sold through Consumerfed. Hence it could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector Companies. Koldy Petroleum Company withdrawn from supplying filled cylinders to consumers of Consumerfed. When they stopped supply cooking gas, Consumerfed forced to open new plant and also new cylinders and regulators. It resulted causing liability of many crores of rupees to the Consumerfed. It is true under the situation there was undue delay. In fact the amount ` 5,750 was only connection fee and claims to refund the same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless. The service rendered by the Consumerfed has to be considered. The connection fee can be considered as a charge for service so rendered to his consumers and if at all refund is essential it may only be proportional.
The only point to be looked into the matter is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so, what is the quantum for which the complaint entitled to get.
Complainant adduced evidence by way of Chief Affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A10 to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the Neethi Gas LPG Consumer Book which proves that the complainant is the customer with No.20888 of opposite parties. It also proves the details of equipments ie 2 cylinders and one regulator have been given to complainant. Ext.A2, letter of receipt issued by 1st opposite party proves that complainant had paid ` 5,750 at the time of availing cooking gas connection.Ext. A9 is the legal notice dated 25.08.09 sent by complainant.
Complainant has stated in the notice that the actual Government cost price of an LPG cylinder is on ` 370 and its quantity is more than that of Neethi Gas and for these reasons she had declined to continue her connection from Neethi Gas and hence she had surrendered the said gas cylinder on 23.07.09 to 1st opposite party requesting to refund the deposited security amount. Ext.A10 is the reply sent by 2nd opposite party whereby agreed to pay ` 2,500 for the full and final settlement.
The evidence adduced by means of chief affidavit is in tune with her pleading. Her evidence shows that she had availed gas connection from opposite party by paying ` 5,750. But later on for reasons of increase of price and reducing the weight of the cylinder complainant discontinued the connection by surrendering the cylinders before 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party in their version admitted that the price increase. The surrendering of cylinder also has not been denied by opposite party.
The available evidence goes to show that complainant compelled to discontinue the cooking gas connection due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, whatever may be the inevitable incidents that had been compelled to face by the 2nd opposite party. Even if the role played by 2nd opposite party is appreciable for the well being of the consumers, the deficiency in supply of cooking gas to consumer cannot be rejected, since it is an essential service that affect the day to day life of the family. Hence we are under the impression that opposite parties are liable to refund the amount ` 5,750 paid by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances we are not awarding compensation or cost.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund ` 5,750 (Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. LPG Consumer book.
A2. Certificate dated 23.07.09.
A3. Cash receipt dated 03.10.06.
A4. Cash receipt dated 19.02.05.
A5. Cash bill dated 19.08.08.
A6. Cash bill dated 02.06.03.
A7. Cash bill dated 04.12.03
A8. Cash bill dated 09.01.04.
A9. Copy of lawyer notice dated 25.08.09.
A10. Letter dated 17.09.09.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
