BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 395/2002 Filed on 19..10..2002<br /> Dated :16..06..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> P. Sukumaran, Sudheer Mandiram, Elamannoorkonam, Pallichal, Naruvamoodu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram- 20.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.Pallichal S.Aswakumar)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Secretary, Naruvamoodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.160, Naruvamoodu – P.O.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. S.R. Thankaraj)<br /> 2.Manager, Kerala State Co-operative Consumers'0 Federation, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> Addl. 3rd opp. Party:<br /> <br /> 3.Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation, Head Office, Ernakulam.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. H. JOSH)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 16..05..2008, the Forum on 16..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The complainant Mr. Sukumaran obtained a Neethi gas connection from the 1st opposite party on 08..05..1998 and he had paid Rs.5,250/- for the same. But there was frequent failure on the part of the 1st opposite party in regular supply of gas. On 02..04..2002 the complainant paid Rs.217/- for a refill cylinder but on that day the 1st opposite party did not deliver the cylinder and from 16..04..2002 the 1st opposite party charged an additional amount of Rs.43/- for getting the cylinder. The complainant alleges that it was illegal for charged the additional amount after 2 weeks of the booking date. And also the complainant states that after 02..04..2002 other gas agencies were not increased the value of gas. And also the complainant alleges that the market rate of Neethi gas is higher than other gases. Hence the complainant decided to cancel the Neethi gas connection and he demanded the refund of the connection charge Rs.5,750/- and refund Rs. 43/- from the opposite parties and the additional charge received from the complainant on 16..04..2002.<br /> 2. In this case the 1st opposite party filed version and the main contention of the 1st opposite party is that the 1st opposite party is not liable for the alleged complaint. According to 1st opposite party as per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complaint is not maintainable against the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is only acts as the institutions of the 2nd opposite party. As per the 1st opposite party the 2nd opposite party is fix charge as per the rules and regulations of the Indian Oil Corporation. And also they contended that there is no provision to refund the connection charge. Hence the 1st opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. The 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are Kerala State Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. The main contention of their version is that the complaint is not maintainable because the opposite parties are established under Co-operative Societies Act hence the dispute stated in the complaint would not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum Under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. And also they stated that the opposite parties are unable to supply refills at the subsidiary market rate.<br /> <br /> 4. The privilege of subsidy was denies for gas sold through Consumerfed. It resulted in a situation where Consumerfed<br /> could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector companies without incurring heavy loss. It may be in view of this the private sector company Shri Shakti LPG Ltd., who is not getting the subsidy, backed out from supplying filled cylinders to the Consumerfed.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite parties are stated that at the time of giving cooking gas connection Consumerfed had received Rs.5,750/- from all the consumers including the complainant. Out of this amount Rs.5,500/- was given to Shri Shakti LPG Ltd., and Rs. 100/- to the Primary Societies through which connection was given and Consuferfed itself appropriated Rs.150/-. When the Shri Shakti LPG Ltd stopped their business the Consumerfed was forced to open a plant at Palakkad to take care of its consumers. The opening of the plant and supplying of gas cylinders and regulators resulted in holding a liability of many crores of rupees to the Consumerfed. Even now Consumerfed is supplying cooking gas to consumers incurring heavy loss. Hence the opposite parties are submit that this Forum may consider the service rendered to the complainant and other consumers from 1998 onwards by Consumerfed without getting any monitory benefit.<br /> <br /> 6. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked.The opposite parties were cross examined the complainant. Opposite parties are not adduced any evidence.<br /> 7.The following points are raised for trial:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service in supply of gas?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?<br /> (iii)Whether the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable?<br /> 8. Points (i) to (iii): On going through the documents and pleading it is seen that the 1st opposite party received Rs.5,750/- as per Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the letter issued b y the complainant to the opposite parties to refund Rs.5,750/- and RS.43/- which was charged by the opposite parties on 16..04..2002 as additional amount. Ext. P4 is the copy of reply letter sent by the 1st opposite party. Ext. P5 is the connection certificate. The main allegations of the complainant are that the opposite parties were not supplying gas in time and the price of the gas is higher than other gases. Due to that reasons the complainant decided to cancel the Neethi gas connection. The opposite parties are submitted their inability to supply the gas in time and the reason for the higher rate of gas. The aim of the Consumer Federation is not profit motive. It is true that Consumerfed is in the forefront of service of the consumers of Kerala through its Triveni, Neethi Medical and Neethi distribution outlets. The product sold through the Consumerfed are at reduced rate compared to prevailing market rate. The objection of the Consumerfed is public benefit with loss profit. In this case there is no document to shows that the connection charge is refundable or not. The terms and conditions marked as Ext.P5 there is no conditions about the matter. Taking the above said facts into consideration we are taking a linent view in fixing the quantum of amount to be refunded to Rs. 2,500/- which are find reasonable. The opposite parties also directed to refund the additional amount of RS.43/- collected from complainant on 16..04..2002.<br /> In the result complaint is allowed partly. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties shall refund RS. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant of the connection charge of Rs. 5,750/- (Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and fifty only)and also pay Rs. 43/- (Rupees fortythree only) along with the amount as the additional charge obtained by the opposite parties from the complainant and also pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the complaint. And directed the complainant to surrender the cylinders and regulators to the 1st opposite party. The said amout shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum if not paid within two months of this order.<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 /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> O.P.No.395/2002<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> I. Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : P. Sukumaran<br /> II. Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Receipt dated 25..03..98 for Rs. 500/-<br /> P2 : Receipt No. 2433 dated 08..05..1998 for Rs. 5250/-.<br /> P3 : Copy of letter dated 14..05..2002 issued to the opposite parties<br /> <br /> P4 : Reply letter dated 25..05..2002 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> P5 : Original Pink coloured connection certificate (No. 12992) dated 30..08..1998 issued to the complainant.<br /> <br /> III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />