DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of January 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of Filing : 19/06/2013
CC No.102/2013
N.V.Francis,
S/o.Kunchuvareed,
Nellissery House,
Vakkala, Elavampadam,
Palakkad
(By Adv.K.Krishnakumar) - Complainant
Vs
1.The Managing Director,
Kerala State Co-operative
Consumer Federation Ltd.,
Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam,
Kochi.
2.V.Radhakrishnan,
Kizhakkencherry Service
Co-operative Bank,
Depot Manager, Kundukad,
Kizhakkencherry, Vadakencherry,
Palakkad. - Opposite parties
O R D E R
Order by Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The facts of the case is as follows:
Complainant applied for a gas connection from the first respondent company by virtue of application No.31630 and has got registration No.30. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- as caution deposit to the first respondent and was furnished with 2 cylinders of gas and one regulator. The supply of gas cylinders from the respondent were improper and irregular even after repeated complaints. There was serious deficiency of service from the part of respondents. Hence, the complainant was forced to surrender the gas cylinders and regulator to the respondent on 13/10/2011. Complainant demanded for return of caution deposit of Rs.6,000/-. But the respondent informed that only Rs.2,500/- will be return to the complainant and he wanted the complainant to file an affidavit stating he needs only Rs.2,500/- back. Because of the deficiency of service on the part of the respondents complainant had to face serious hardships. Hence this complaint is filed praying to direct the respondent to pay caution deposit of Rs.6,000/- alongwith interest @12% and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered alongwith cost of the proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and was issued notice to opposite parties for appearance. 1st Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
The above complaint was not maintainable either in law or facts. Since opposite party was established under Co-operative Societies Act dispute stated in the complaint would not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum u/s 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
As Consumerfed is not a public sector company dealing with petroleum products it had to depend on private companies for buying bulk petroleum gas since the rules prevents M/s.Indian Oil & Hindustan Petroleum from selling bulk gas for parallel marketing. Thus Consumerfed entered into contract with Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. for supplying filled cooking gas cylinders for delivering to the societies from where consumer availed cooking gas connection with Consumerfed. At the time Consumerfed entered into supply of cooking gas, the price of the bulk gas was more or less the same in public and private sector companies. The Government of India allowed the subsidy to the cooking gas but this was allowed only to public sector companies such as Bharath Petroleum, Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum. The privilege of subsidy was denied for the gas sold through Consumerfed. It resulted in a situation where Consumerfed could not sell cooking gas at the price of the public sector companies without incurring heavy loss. It may be in view of the public sector company Koldy Petroleum India Ltd., who is not getting the subsidy, backed out from supplying filled cylinders to the consumers of Consumerfed. There is arbitration case filed by the Consumerfed against Koldy Petroleum India Ltd., against their backing out from the contract.
At the time of providing cooking gas connection Consumerfed have received Rs.5750/- from all the consumers including the complainant. Out of this amount, Rs.5,500/- was given to Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. and Rs.100/- to primary societies through which connection was availed and Consumerfed itself appropriated Rs.150/-. As per the agreement Koldi Petroleum India Ltd. they supplied two cylinders and one regulator to each consumers. The filled cylinder in a periodical manner were also supplied by Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.
When Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. abruptly stopped filled cylinders, Consumerfed forced to open a plant at Palakkad to take care of its consumers. It is learned that Consumerfed are not allowed to supply filled cylinders in the cylinders supplied by Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.
Accordingly consumerfed had to purchase new cylinders and regulators based on Government of India direction and supplied the same to the consumers without collecting any additional amount even though thousand of Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. empty cylinders are lying idle at Primary Co-operative Societies. Opening of the plant and supplying of gas cylinders and regulator resulted in holding liability of many crores of rupees to the Consumerfed. Even now Consumerfed supplying cooking gas to the consumers incurring heavy loss. The price of bulk gas when it reaches its plant of Consumerfed comes to Rs.647.76/ per12 kg. The tax it suffers is to the tune of 4%. The basic tax plus filling expenses and transportation to the various destination resulted in very huge loss. In fact at present Consumerfed suffers a loss of approximately Rs.30/- for reach cylinder it delivers to the consumers. Nearly 29,000 cylinders are filled and issued to the consumer incurring a loss of approximately Rs.8.70/- lakhs per month even after the increase of price as Rs.699.14. It is believed that Government of India gives Rs.253/- as subsidy per cylinder for all cooking gas cylinder sold through public sector companies and allow discount in excise duty of other petroleum products manufactured by oil companies, but this is not given to Consumefed. Consumerfed is in the forefront of service of the consumer of Kerala through its Triveni, Neethi Medical and Neethi distribution outlets. The product sold through outlet is at reduced rate compared to the prevailing market rate. Thus the role of Consumerfed in holding the price of the product sold through private market is beyond any comparison. Public sector companies are now offering gas connection in speedy manner. Connection fee is also made quite nominal. They get profit from other oil product. They have the privilege of subsidy too. This has resulted in boom in the number of consumer preferring to cancel the gas connection with the Consumerfed. The complainant is also one among them. As already stated the Consumerfed has suffered heavy loss by venturing cooking gas segment at the time there was undue delay in getting gas connection. But it was done with the sole motive of helping the public of Kerala.
The statement in the petition that Rs.500/- paid by him as registration fee and the balance Rs.5,250/- as the security deposit is not correct. In fact the whole Rs.5,750/- was connection fee only. Therefore the claim for refund of same in the pretext of security deposit is baseless. The statement in the petition that the gas supplied is of inferior quality and of lesser weight than envisages is totally baseless and is denied. As per the scheme, gas cylinders have been supplied through the societies at a rate of one cylinder per month. It may be noted that major chunk of the gas procured for being supplied to consumers are from private companies who in turn depends on import of gas. The filled gas cylinders were supplied in batches to the societies and the consumers had to get it collected from such societies. If the consumer had approached the societies for filled cylinders, the society in turn would have sought for the same with consumerfed. In all such cases consumerfed has ensured delivery of cylinders to the societies. In the request of the complainant to refund the entire connection amount with interest cannot be allowed. Consumerfed had get only Rs.150/- out of the connection fee of Rs.5750/-. They have to replace the cylinders and regulator of the consumer including that of the complainant and set up a new plant at Palakkad incurring crores of rupees just to meet the requirements of consumer. Connection fee can be considered as a charge for service so rendered to the consumer and if at all refund is essential it may be only proportional. Considering the above facts the complaint has to be dismissed.
2nd Opposite party was absent and set exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 was marked.
Heard both parties. The point that arise for consideration is
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
- If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
First opposite party neither filed any affidavit nor document to prove their contentions. It is admitted in the version that complainant paid Rs.5750/- for connection fee and Rs.500/- towards registration fee. First opposite party should have arranged refund of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant at the time of surrender. It is noticed that there is no contract between Koldi Petroleum India Ltd. and the complainant. Opposite parties ought to have taken necessary steps to prove their contentions alleged in the version. Hence we are of the view that first opposite party had failed to discharge their responsibility in this matter. In view of the facts set forth above opposite parties are deficient in rendering their services to the complainant. In the result complaint is allowed.
Hence, we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get the whole amount with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of January 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
K.P.Suma.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Pass Book
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
