D.O.F. 18.08.2012 D.O.O. 18.10.2012 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 18th day of October, 2012. C.C.No.248/2012 O.C. Premavalli Sreenarayana Nivas, Chola Road, : Complainant Kuttyattoor, Kannur – 670602 1. The Secretary, Mayyil Service Co-operative Bank, Mayyil, Kannur – 670602. 2. The Managing Director, Kerala State Consumer Federation, : Opposite Parties Gandhi Nagar, Cochin. 3. The Manager, Koldy Petroleum India, Moongilamada, Kozhinjampara, Palakkad. O R D E R Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund ` 5750 with interest and cost. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : The opposite parties provided gas connection for domestic purposes. The opposite party offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. But there was no due supply of cooking gas and committed gross defect in performing the terms of the contract. The said payment was made through agent of opposite party ie Mayyil Service Co-op. Bank Ltd, P.O. Mayyil. But the supply of gas happened to be irregular. So complainant cancelled gas connection and made request to repay deposit amount before Secretary, Mayyil Service Co-op. Bank. But the opposite party were not ready to repay the amount. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount and opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint. After receiving the complaint notices were issued to opposite parties. Subsequently opposite party No.2 & 3 sent their version. Opposite party No.2 admitted that Consumer Fed had received ` 5750 from the complainant. 2nd opposite party further stated that it has suffered heavy loss by venturing in the cooking gas segment and at that time there was undue delay in getting gas connection. But it was done with the sole motive of helping the public of Kerala 2nd opposite party contended that infact the amount of ` 5750 was only connection fee and not security deposit. Therefore the claims for refund of the same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless. Hence the complainant is not entitled to refund. More 2nd opposite party contended that at the time of giving cooking gas connection Consumerfed had received ` 5750 from all the consumers including the complainant in this opposite party. Out of this amount ` 5,500 was given to Koldy Petroleum India Ltd and ` 100 to primary societies through which connection was availed and Consumer fed itself appropriated ` 150. As per the agreement with the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd they have supplied two cylinders and one regulator to each consumers. Opposite party No.3 sent their version contending that as per agreement between the 3rd opposite party and Kerala State Consumer Federation Ltd. Cochin, Kerala State Consumer Federation Ltd. Cochin, who is entrusted with the supply of LPG connection through Neethi Stores or any retail sales outlets of the Kerala State Consumer Federation Ltd. Cochin. 3rd opposite party has performed their part without any default. The evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2. The main point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount. Since the opposite party had admitted that there is interruption in gas connection together with the evidence adduced by the complainant by way of evidence and documents the deficiency on the side of the opposite party is undoubtedly clear. 1st opposite party has admitted that they have received ` 5750 at the time of giving connection. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 12.07.2012, which shows that complainant has paid ` 5750 to 1st opposite party for taking gas connection. Since the gas distribution became irregular along with high increase of price of gas the complainant constrained to surrender the equipments and disconnecting the gas connection. Eventhough complainant made oral request to 1st opposite party for refund the security amount, the opposite party failed to comply the same. Ext.A2 is the surrendering certificate dated 22.09.2012 which shows that complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1st opposite party. Opposite Party No.1 promised to the complainant that he can accept full amount from opposite party whenever he surrender the equipments. Hence issue No.1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund 5750 to complainant. In the result complaint is allowed directing opposite party to refund ` 5750 (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Dated this the 18th day of October, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Certificate dated 12.07.12. from 1st OP. A2. Surrendering Certificate dated 22.09.12 from 1st OP. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
