Kerala

Kannur

CC/163/2007

M.Leela, Mathodan House,Near Puthiyakavu,Pappinisseri West,Kannur 670565 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,Irinav Service Co Op Bank, P.O.Irinav - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/163/2007

M.Leela, Mathodan House,Near Puthiyakavu,Pappinisseri West,Kannur 670565
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary,Irinav Service Co Op Bank, P.O.Irinav
2.Managing Director,Kerala state Co Op Consumer Federation Gandhi Nagar,Kochi
3.Managing Director,Koldy Petroleun India Moongilamada,Vannamada,Kozhinjampara palakkad
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

2.9.08 Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This complaint is filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost. The complainant’s case is that she had availed gas connection from the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/- and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were supplying gas. The connection was availed by the complainant with a stipulation that the amount will be refunded at the time of surrendering the connection. But later on the gas was not available in time and those that available were substandard in quality and quantity. So she had surrendered the connection and demanded for the deposit. But the opposite parties were not ready to return the same. Hence this complaint. On receiving the complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though all the opposite parties were acknowledged the same, they were not turned up not filed version. The points to be considered in this mater, whether there is any deficiency in service and what is the relief ? The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. The oral testimony of PW1 along with the exhibits A1 and A2 proves that the complainant had availed gas connection from the opposite parties and surrendered the connection to the opposite parties. Complainant deposed that she had surrendered the gas connection because of the non-availability of gas within time. This itself shows that there is some deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get refunded the amount of Rs.5750/- and hence issues are answered in favour of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- (Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the letter dt.2.10.07 issued by OP1 to OP2 A2. Coupon issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.




......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P