Kerala

Kannur

CC/08/83

C.K.Rabiya,K.M.House,P.O.Ponnyam East,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur.Dt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,Kadirur Service Co O[p Bank,P.O.Kadirur,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur.dt - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/83

C.K.Rabiya,K.M.House,P.O.Ponnyam East,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur.Dt
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary,Kadirur Service Co O[p Bank,P.O.Kadirur,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur.dt
2.Managing Director, Kerala State consumer Federation,Kochi
3.Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.,Moongilmada,Vannamada,Kozhinhampara,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

Smt.PREETHAKUMARI. K.P. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs 5750/-with interest and cost. The complainant averments in brief are as follows. She had availed gas connection from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs 5750/- to the first opposite party with an assurance that the amount will be refunded at the time of surrendering the gas connection. But later on supply of refilled gas cylinder became regularly irregular and supplied gas having substandard quality and quantity. Because of this she had surrendered the gas connection and demanded for the amount of Rs 5750/-. But the opposite parties were not willing to refund it. Hence this complaint. On receiving notice from the Forum, opposite party no.2 had filed version admitting that the complainant had availed gas connection by paying an amount of Rs 5750/-. But contended that out of this amount Rs 5500/- was given to the opposite party no.3, Rs 100/- to opposite party no.1 and Rs 150/- was appropriated itself. The delay caused in supplying refilled gas cylinder was due to the withdrawal of the opposite party no.3 from providing gas. So opposite party no.2 has no liability and if any liability is found opposite party no.3 is only liable for it. On the above contentions the following issues are raised for consideration 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service of opposite parties 2. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2. The admission of opposite party along with the Ext.A1 proves that the complainant had availed gas connection by paying an amount of Rs 5750/-.Similarly opposite party no.2 admits further that there caused some delay in supplying refilled gas cylinder. So we are of the opinion that all the opposite parties were jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs 5750/- to the complainant. In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund an amount of 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 the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT\ APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Connection certificate issued by the opposite party A2. Receipt dt. 11.8.2007 issued by the opposite party Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL Forwarded/ by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT




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