DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th day of September 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President in charge <br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.48/2007<br /> <br /> P. Balasubramanian<br /> 72 years <br /> S/o. Karunakaran Nair<br /> Pathiyatte House<br /> Mudappallur Post <br /> Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> 1.The Managing Director<br /> Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation<br /> Kochi.<br /> <br /> 2. The Secretary<br /> Alathur Service Co-operative Bank <br /> Alathur<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnanan, President in charge <br /> The complainant complaints that he has applied for obtaining a Neethi cooking gas connection from Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation, Alathur and received the connection on 02.06.98. Since the above mentioned gas connection was not necessary the complainant requested the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation to return back the amount already remitted. But the society has not returned the deposit even after elapse of more than one year.<br /> - 2 - <br /> According to the complainant, the aforementioned act of opposite party amounted to clear deficiency in service . Hence he has approached before this Forum and filed this complaint seeking an order directing the opposite party <br /> to pay a sum of Rs. 12,750/- as compensation ( Rs.5000/- towards the mental agony, Rs.2000/- for traveling, Rs.5,700/- towards deposit).<br /> <br /> Notices were issued to opposite parties for their appearance. 1st opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. <br /> <br /> They denied the entire averments and allegations in this complaint.<br /> <br /> They in their version submit that 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. This Consumerfed entered into a contract with Shri Shakthi LPG Ltd for supplying filled cooking gas cylinders for delivering to the societies from where consumers availed cooking gas connection with Consumerfed.<br /> <br /> It is also submitted that at the time of giving cooking gas connection Consumerfed had received Rs.5,750/- from all the consumers including the complainant too. Out of this amount Rs.5,500/- was given to Shri. Shakthi LPG Ltd and Rs.100/- to Primary Societies through which connection was availed and Consumerfed itself appropriated Rs.150/-.<br /> <br /> The opposite party averred that Shri Shakti LPG Ltd stopped the supplying of filled cylinders and Consumerfed was forced to open a plant at <br /> <br /> - 3 -<br /> Palakkad to take care of its consumers. It is also learnt that the Consumerfed are not allowed to supply filled cylinders supplied by Shri Shakti LPG Ltd. Accordingly Consumerfed had to purchase new cylinders and regulators based on Government of India directions and supplied the same to the consumers without collecting any additional amount even though thousands of Shri Shakti LPG Ltd empty cylinders were lying idle at Primary Co-operatives. The opening of the Plant and supplying of Gas cylinders and regulators resulted in holding a liability of many crores of rupees to the Consumerfed.<br /> <br /> According opposite party 1 they are supplying cooking gas to consumers incurring heavy loss. The price bulk gas when it reaches the plant of the Consumerfed comes to Rs.373.44 Kg per 12 Kg. The tax it suffers is to the tune of 16%. The basic cost plus filling expenses and transportation to the various destination resulted in a very huge loss. Hence the Consumerfed suffers a loss of approximately Rs.90/- per each cylinder.<br /> <br /> They are also suffering heavy loss by venturing in the cooking gas segment at a time there was undue delay in getting gas connection. But it was done with the sole motive of helping the public of Kerala. It is alleged that the sum of Rs.500/- paid by the complainant as registration fee and the balance Rs.5,250/- as security deposit were not correct. In fact the whole amount of Rs.5,750/- was connection fee only. Therefore the claim for refund of same in the pretext of security deposit was baseless and therefore the request of the complainant to refund the entire connection amount with interest may not be <br /> granted by this Honourable Forum. If it is granted almost all the consumers may also request for refund of the connection fee and in such a situation all the working capital of the Consumerfed will not be sufficient or pay back the amount which may result in withering away of all the consumer friendly units<br /> - 4 -<br /> of the Consumerfed . Opposite party 1 states that they had got only just Rs.150/- out of the connection fee of Rs.5750/-. <br /> <br /> The opposite party 1 further avers that in fact this Honourable forum should penalize M/s. Shri Shakti LPG Ltd who had provided gas connection to our customers and but cheated them by withdrawing from supply. The cooking gas connection documents were issued under their name and style only and hence they only should be asked to refund. The connection fee can be considered as a charge for service so rendered to the consumers and if at all refund as essential it may be only proportional to consider the service utilized so far and deny the refund of connection fee to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Second opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. It is admitted that 2nd opposite party supplied gas cylinders to the consumers through Neethi Store for and on behalf of first opposite party . The amount collected from the consumers for this purpose was forwarded to 1st opposite party and the initial stage itself. Similarly, the amount collected from the complainant was also forwarded to the 1st opposite party. Now the complainant had put forward an application stating that he does not want the connection and the deposit amount should be refunded. The said application was forwarded to 1st opposite party for necessary action.<br /> <br /> The 1st opposite party issued a reply asking the 2nd opposite party to refund Rs.2,500/- from the bank. Since the director board of 2nd opposite party had not taken any decision to refund the said amount, the 2nd opposite party send a reply asking the 1st opposite party to pay the said amount. All these facts were intimated to the complainant.<br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit Exhibits A1 to A5 was marked from the side of the complainant. Heard the complaint. We have perused the affidavit as well as relevant documents produced before the forum.<br /> <br /> From Exhibit A1 it is obvious that the complainant had paid Rs.5,750/- to OP2 for availing LPG connection with two cylinders and one regulator. First opposite party admitted that they had appropriated Rs.150/- and paid Rs.100/- to OP2 towards meeting their expenses in this regard. According to OP1, the balance amount of Rs.5,500/- was paid to Shri Sakthi LPG Ltd. It is evident from the Exhibit A3 that opposite party 1 has made arguments to supply LPG connection to the complainant through Op2. Opposite party 2 have not produced any valid evidence to prove their contention. It is noticed that there is no contract between Sakthi LPG Ltd and complainant. The opposite parties ought to have taken necessary steps to arrange the refund of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant . We are of the view that 1st opposite party had failed to discharge their responsibility in this matter.<br /> <br /> In view of the facts set forth above, opposite parties are deficient in rendering their service to the complainant. In the result the complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> Hence we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant along with Rs.500/- as costs 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<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September, 2008 <br /> President In charge (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> - 6 - <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 series – Receipts issued by opposite party for the deposit <br /> Ext.A2 – Postal receipt<br /> Ext.A3 – Connection certificate<br /> Ext.A4 – Letter issued by Co-operative society to Managing Director<br /> Consumerfed dated 12/12/06<br /> Ext.A5 – Letter issued Co-operative Society to Managing Director, Consumerfed <br /> dated 05/06/05<br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party<br /> <br /> Nil<br /> <br /> Costs (Allowed)<br /> <br /> Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost