Kerala

Kannur

CC/150/2006

K.P.Pavithran, Jaithra Nivas,P.O.Kadavathur,Palathayi,670676 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,Panur Service Co Op Bank Ltd , No C 5010,P.O.Panur - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/150/2006

K.P.Pavithran, Jaithra Nivas,P.O.Kadavathur,Palathayi,670676
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary,Panur Service Co Op Bank Ltd , No C 5010,P.O.Panur
2.MD,Kerala State Co Op Consumer Federation Gandhi Nagar,Kochin
3.Manager,Koldy Petroleum 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

6.9.08 K.P.Preethakumari,Member This is a complaint 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’s case is that he had availed gas connection from the 1st opposite party before 8 years and the gas was supplied by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party as a joint venture. At the time of availing gas connection the complainant had given Rs.500/- as registration fee andRs.5250/- as deposit with a stipulation that the above said Rs.5750/- will be returned back at the time of surrendering gas connection. Gradually the supply of refilled gas cylinder became irregular and the gas supplied was of substandard in quality and quantity. Even though the complainant had reported this before the 1st opposite party, they replied that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were responsible for such deficiency. Because of this the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party for surrendering the gas connection and to get refund the amount, the 1st opposite party was not willing to do so. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum the 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their version. 1st opposite party filed their version admitting that the complainant had availed gas connection by giving an amount of Rs.5750/- and caused some deficiency in supplying refilled gas cylinders, which was due to the act of other opposite parties. The 1st opposite party contended that they had acted as an agent and handed over the amount to 2nd opposite party and have no liability and hence complaint against them is liable to be dismissed. 2nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had availed gas connection from the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/- and the said amount was handed over to them by the 1st opposite party. Out of that amount they had given Rs. 5500/- to the 3rd opposite party and Rs.100/- to 1st opposite party and Rs.150/- was appropriated by it self. The delay caused in supplying the refilled gas cylinder was not because of any deficiency on their part but due to the withdrawal of 3rd opposite party from supplying. So if any deficiency is found, the 3rd opposite party alone is liable for the same. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration: 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 The admission of opposite parties along with Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had availed gas connection by giving an amount of Rs.5750/-. The opposite parties further admitted that there caused some delay in supplying refilled gas cylinder. Further the complainant contended that the 1st opposite party was not willing to accept the cylinder and regulator. More over the amount was appropriated by all opposite parties. So all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency and to compensate the complainant by refunding the amount of Rs.5750/-. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5750/- 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 against the opposite parties under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is also directed to surrender the cylinder and regulator after receiving the amount. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Receipt dt.25.9.98 issued by OP1. Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite prties Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur




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