SECRETARY,OMMESSERY SERVICE COPERATIVCE BANK V/S ABDUL SATTAR.K.K - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Kozhikode

10/2007

ABDUL SATTAR.K.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY,OMMESSERY SERVICE COPERATIVCE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

P.PABDUL LATHEEF

17 Apr 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (Notice Under Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986)(No.68 of 1986)
KOZHIKODE
consumer case(CC) No. 10/2007

ABDUL SATTAR.K.K						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
SECRETARY,OMMESSERY SERVICE COPERATIVCE BANK MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE COOP CONSUMER FED						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. ABDUL SATTAR.K.K

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. SECRETARY,OMMESSERY SERVICE COPERATIVCE BANK 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE COOP CONSUMER FED

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. P.PABDUL LATHEEF

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

ORDER By G. Yadunadhan, President: The complainant had obtained the gas connection from opposite party-2 through opposite party-1 by remitting an amount of Rs,5750/-. As service provided by opposite party was deficient by delaying to give refilled cylinders and opposite party had also enhanced the price of the cylinders, the complainant had requested the opposite party-1 to refund the deposit money. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Opposite party-2 filed a version stating that the petition is not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The amount cannot be refunded. There is no deficiency in service. The only question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? It is proved that the complainant has obtained gas connection after depositing the amount of Rs.5750/- from opposite party-2 through opposite party-1. According to the complainant at the time of giving supply, the second opposite party undertook to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when requested by the complainant. But according to the complainant the opposite party failed to supply refilled gas cylinders as per his request. Hence he is seeking refund of the deposit amount. The second opposite party contended that the deposit amount cannot be refunded. The opposite party-2 has not made clear under what authority they have retained the amount. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the deposit amount of Rs5250/-. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party-2 is directed to refund of Rs.5250/- to the complainant and the complainant has to return back the cylinder and regulator to the opposite party. Pronounced in the open court this the 17th day of April 2008 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

ORDER By G. Yadunadhan, President: The complainant had obtained the gas connection from opposite party-2 through opposite party-1 by remitting an amount of Rs,5750/-. As service provided by opposite party was deficient by delaying to give refilled cylinders and opposite party had also enhanced the price of the cylinders, the complainant had requested the opposite party-1 to refund the deposit money. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Opposite party-2 filed a version stating that the petition is not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The amount cannot be refunded. There is no deficiency in service. The only question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? It is proved that the complainant has obtained gas connection after depositing the amount of Rs.5750/- from opposite party-2 through opposite party-1. According to the complainant at the time of giving supply, the second opposite party undertook to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when requested by the complainant. But according to the complainant the opposite party failed to supply refilled gas cylinders as per his request. Hence he is seeking refund of the deposit amount. The second opposite party contended that the deposit amount cannot be refunded. The opposite party-2 has not made clear under what authority they have retained the amount. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the deposit amount of Rs5250/-. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party-2 is directed to refund of Rs.5250/- to the complainant and the complainant has to return back the cylinder and regulator to the opposite party. Pronounced in the open court this the 17th day of April 2008 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.