Kerala

Kannur

CC/126/2011

AK Vamanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary, Mayyil Service Co-op Bank Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2011

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
 
CC NO. 126 Of 2011
 
1. AK Vamanan
Radhalayam, PO Mayyil,
Kannur
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Secretary, Mayyil Service Co-op Bank Ltd,
c343, PO Mayyil,
Kannur
Kerala
2. Kerala State Co-op. Consumer Federation,
Gandhi Nagar,
Ernakulam
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P Member
 HONORABLE JESSY.M.D Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

  D.O.F. 11.04.2011

                                                                                   D.O.O. 28.06.2011

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 28th day of June,  2011.

 

 

C.C.No.126/2011

 

A.K. Vamanan,

S/o. K.V. Narayanan Nambiar,                             :         Complainant

‘Radhalayam’, Mayyil P.O.,

Kannur     

 

 

1.  The Secretary,

     Mayyil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

     Mayyil P.O., Kannur

2.  The Kerala State Co-operative                         :         Opposite parties

     Consumer Federation Ltd.,

     Gandhinagar, Ernakulam,

     Kochi – 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 parties to refund ` 5,750 with interest.    

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  The complainant had paid an amount of ` 5,750 as refundable deposit by way of demand draft drawn on 19.09.1998, Kannur District Co-operative Bank.   Opposite  party did not distribute gas in time.  While taking gas connection opposite party assured that they will distribute gas cylinder as and when needed.  Complainant received the gas cylinder only on rare occasions.  Moreover, the price of the gas also increased.  Under such circumstances the consumers including the complainant decided to stop the purchasing of gas cylinder from opposite party and intimated the matter to both the opposite parties.  But they were not responded positively.  Complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount with interest and cost.

          Forum sent notice to both the opposite parties but they did not appear before the Forum for conducting the matter.  Though they remained absent, 2nd opposite party sent their version admitting that the complainant has purchased the gas connection from them.  They have also admitted that they were not able to distribute the gas cylinder regularly.  They have further stated that as Consumerfed, 2nd opposite party is not a public sector Company dealing with the petroleum products, it had to depend on private companies for buying bulk petroleum gas.  Thus Consumerfed entered into a contract with Koldy Petroleum India Limited for supply of filled cooking gas cylinders.   At the time of entering into the contract price of the bulk gas was more or less same in public and private sector companies.  The Government of India allowed subsidy to the cooking gas but this was allowed only to public sector companies.  The privilege of subsidy was denying for the gas sold through Consumerfed.  As a result the Consumerfed could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector Companies.  So the price rise was an inevitable result.   Moreover, the Koldy Petroleum India Limited abruptly stopped supplying filled cylinders and thus regular supply disturbed.  Thus Consumerfed forced to open a new plant so as to make assure the supply of gas to consumers.  Even now Consumerfed is supplying cooking gas to consumers incurring heavy loss.  The public sector companies in having the privilege of subsidy and thereby resulted the price difference.  Consumerfed has suffered heavy loss and also caused undue delay in supply.   The attempt of the 2nd opposite party is to help the consumers and all the best efforts were made to distribute the gas cylinder as far as possible.  The request of the complainant to refund the connection amount cannot be allowed since it will result in withering away of all the consumer friendly units of the Consumerfed.  Considering the above stated facts opposite party prays to take into account the service already availed by the complainant and to reject the plea taken by him.

          The main point to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in distributing the gast cylinder as promised at the time of availing the gas connection.  Ext. A1 receipt proves that the complainant has paid an amount of ` 5,770 to the opposite party.  Ext.A2 issued by 1st opposite party proves that he has taken gas connection from the opposite party.  Ext.A3 legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party proves that he has requested them to refund the amount.  Ext.B4 is the reply sent by the Consumerfed stating that the complainant can get a refund of ` 2,500 if he is ready to agree this amount as full and final settlement.

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant filed gas connection on payment of ` 5,770.  The materials on record together with the version of 2nd opposite party makes it clear that the opposite party failed to distribute the gas cylinder regularly.  So also it is an admitted fact that the price of the gas cylinder also increased.  It is seen that even after increasing the price opposite party failed to distribute the gas regularly.  If the gas cylinder is not available there is no meaning in holding gas connection.  Hence it is quite evident that the increase in price and inability to distribute the gas cylinder regularly is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is quite natural that a consumer will suffer much if gas is not available on demand.  The consumers those who are depending upon gas for cooking will naturally put in trouble in the daily life if gas is not available.  Hence it is quite natural that the consumer will be forced to take gas connection from others to ensure the availability.  So the opposite party is liable to refund the connection amount ` 5,750.  Considering the social nature of the functioning of 2nd opposite party we are not awarding compensation and cost.  Thus it is ordered to refund the connection fee  ` 5,750.

          In the result complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to refund an amount of ` 5,750 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.  Copy of receipt of remittance of payment in bank.

A2.  Certificate dated 07.01.11.

A3.  Copy of Lawyer notice dated 24.01.11

A4.  Letter dated 26.02.11

 

Exhibits for the opposite party

 

Nil

 

Witness examined for the complainant

 

PW1.  Complainant

 

Witness examined for opposite party

 

Nil

 

 

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

 

 

 

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P]
Member
 
[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D]
Member

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.