By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            Complainant P.K. Gopalan has filed the complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Petition is filed to get back the deposited amount with opposite party for obtaining gas connection along with compensation. The second opposite party was dealing domestic cooking gas supplied under the name and style of Surya Gas Agency at High School Road, Balussery. The complainant registered his name for gas connection by depositing Rs.600/- on 29-10-94 and Rs.4100/- on 31-5-95 to the second opposite party at his office of the address shown as the first opposite party. The receipt for the deposit was issued by the second opposite party in the name of first opposite party, Surya Gas Agencies, High School Road, Balussery. After a period opposite party closed his office for a while and reopened, due to the repeated demands from consumers including this complainant. After a long period the second opposite party closed the office of first opposite party at Balussery without making any arrangements for supplying gas. The complainant and other consumers contacted second opposite party for refilling the gas cylinders or refund of the deposited amount. The second opposite party failed to supply either the gas cylinder or to refund the amount. Complainant has filed the petition due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties to get back the deposit amount with compensation.

 

            Notice sent to opposite party-1 and opposite party-2  returned with endorsement “Not known”. The complainant furnished the residential address of opposite party-2 in which notice was sent. Opposite party-2 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint. Opposite party-2 stated that the petition is time barred as the cause of action arose on 29-10-94 and 31-1-95 so the complaint is barred by time limitation. Opposite party-2 denied that opposite party was dealing domestic cooking gas supplies under the name of Surya Gas Agencies, High School Road, Balusseri. The gas agency was run by Surya Petroleum Private Limited, Erattupetta, Kottayam District and not by second opposite party. The cylinders were owned by Surya Petroleum Private Limited, Erattupetta and the refilling was done by them in the empty cylinders. The second opposite party never received any amount from the complainant for providing gas service or for any other purpose. Opposite party-2 was an employee under first opposite party for a short period only. For the last 10 years second opposite party is in Government service. The first opposite party is only a branch for the distribution of gas and second opposite party was an employee for a short period.   Opposite party-2 is not liable to refund the amount or pay compensation to the complainant. Opposite party-2 prays to dismiss the complaint with costs to opposite party-2.

 

            The points for consideration is (1) whether the complaint is barred by time limitation? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

 

            PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A8 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 was examined on opposite parties’ side. No documents were marked on opposite parties’ side.

 

Point No.1:

 

            Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant has filed the case belatedly. After a lapse of more than 10 years. The complainant had taken connection during the year 1994-95 but the case of the complainant is that he had deposited the amount for attaining gas connection and opposite party-2 has refilled the gas cylinders for long period. When opposite party-2 entered into Government service he closed down the agency and reopened after sometime and conducted business employing some people under his control and supervision. But later on opposite party-2 failed to supply refilled gas cylinders to the consumers including the complainant without making any arrangement s for supplying refilled gas cylinders. Complainant had issued Lawyer notice to the opposite party during the year 2007 but opposite party-2 did not respond to the request of the complainant to refund the deposited amount. The complainant has filed the petition before the Forum during the year 2007 because the deposit amount is still with the opposite party. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the cause of action still continuous and the petition is maintainable and not time barred.

 

Point No.2:-

 

            It is an admitted fact that the second opposite party was conducting a gas agency at Balussery. Complainant has produced Ext.A1 and A2 the receipt for the deposit amount in which a phone No. is given as 049591-3065. According to the complainant that is the phone No. of the opposite party-2. The opposite party has denied and stated in his deposition Page-2 jo£Y¢ A1 ¨k ©e¡x cØt By¨TY¡¨X¼® Fc¢´s¢i¢¿. The complainant has produced Ext.A8. Ext.A8 is attained by the complainant from the office of the Principal General Manager, Telecom, Kozhikode-1 under R.T.I. Act. The name and address of the subscriber of Telephone No.2223065 is shown as Raghavan Nair.M., T.P. 8/41,Moonamthode House, Thamarasseri. Affidavit filed by the second opposite party is in the name of Shabu, S/o. Raghavan Nair residing at Hostel House, Nooramthode, Korangad, Thamarassery-P.O. Both these addresses are the same and the Telephone No.3065 was given in the name of Raghavan Nair was provided since 26.6.93 and later it was changed to 2223065. The Phone No. in the receipt Ext.A1 and A2 given by opposite party-2 Surya Gas Agency, Balussery 3065 is the same as the phone No. of Raghvan Nair.M. which was shown in Ext.A2. Ext.A2 shows the telephone No.2223065 was given connection during the period 26.6.93. While providing connection it was 3065 Thamarassery. Opposite party has also denied the signature in Ext.A1 and A2. Complainant has pointed out that the signatures in Ext.A1 and A2 and the signature in Ext.A3 Lawyer notice and Ext.A5 are the same. Ext.A5 is the postal acknowledgement card in which the address is written as Mr. Shabu, S/o. Raghavan Nair, Hostel House, Nooramthode, Korangad, Thamarassery. Even though opposite party-2 has denied his signature the address in both Ext.A5 and the Chief affidavit of opposite party-2 is one and the same. After perusing all these exhibits Forum has been convinced that opposite party-2 was running the Surya Gas Agency during the time when the complainant had deposited and taken gas connection. The evidence of PW2 also reinforces that opposite party-2 was running gas agency in the name of Surya Gas Agency at Balussery. It is an admitted fact that opposite party-2 has collected the deposit for giving gas connection and distributing refilled gas cylinders to the consumers including the complainant. But opposite party-2 after getting a Government job had closed down the agency and failed to give refilled gas cylinders to the complainant as and when required by him. Opposite party-2 also did not make any arrangement to make available refilled gas cylinders to the complainant or make any effort to refund the deposit amount to the complainant. In our opinion opposite party-2 was negligent and deficient in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the deposit amount.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to return back Rs.4700/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. On receiving the amount complainant has to return back the two gas cylinders and regulator to opposite parties.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the   20th day of March 2010.

 

 

        Sd/- PRESIDENT                        Sd/- MEMBER                        Sd/-MEMBER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

 

A1. Receipt dt. 29-10-94 issued by the 1^st O.P. to the complainant.

A2. Receipt dt. 31-5-95. issued by the 1^st O.P. to the complainant.

A3. Copy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 12-1-2007.

A4. Postal Receipt.

A5. Postal acknowledgement.

A6. Receipt dt. 5-1-97.

A7. Receipt dt. 23-10-04

A8. Certificate issued by Dy. General Manager (Admn.), B.S.N.L. Kozhikode.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

                        Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Gopalan( Complainant)

PW2. Abraham. V.C., Postman, Valliyattu House, P.O. Chembukadavu, Kozhikode.

 

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1. Shabu (Second opposite party)

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

 

                                    // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.