D.O.F. 14.10.2011
D.O.O. 04.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011.
C.C.No.308/2011
V.K. Vasu,
S/o. Govindan, : Complainant
Vaniyakandiyil House,
Thripangottur Amsom, Kadavathur Desom,
P.O. Kadavathur.
(Rep. by Adv. Anu P.K.)
1. The Managing Director,
Kerala State Co-op. Consumer
Federation Ltd., Gandhi Nagar
Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 020 : Opposite parties
2. The Secretary,
Kadavathur Service Co-op. Bank
P.O. Kadavathur – 670676
O R D E R
Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund ` 5000 together with interest 12% from 19.06.1998.
As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant has taken cooking gas connection from opposite parties through 2nd opposite party, Kadavathur Service Co-operative Bank. The distribution of gas connection is a joint effort of all opposite parties. Complainant paid 5000 at the time of taking the connection and he was then assured by the 2nd opposite party that the amount would be refunded when the equipments are returned. Since the gas distribution become irregular along with high increase of price of gas, the complainant constrained to surrender the equipments and disconnecting the gas connection. Even after surrendering the equipments opposite party did not take care to refund the amount. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint Forum sent notices to both sides. 1st opposite party filed their version. Opposite party filed their version contending that at the time of giving cooking gas connection Consumerfed had received ` 5750 from all the consumers including the complainant in this O.P. Out of this amount ` 5500 was given to Koldy Petroleum India Ltd and ` 100 to primary societies through which connection was availed and Consumerfed itself appropriated ` 150. As per the agreement with the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd., they supplied two cylinders and one regulator to each consumers. The filled cylinders in a periodical manner were also supplied by Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. They further admit that some delay was caused in supplying refilled gas cylinder which was caused not because of any default committed by 1st opposite party. So 1st opposite party is not liable.
On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 marked.
Issue No.1 to 3 :
The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has availed gas connection from 2nd opposite party by paying an amount of ` 5000. The complainant was assured that the amount will be refunded at the time when the equipments are returned. Complainant surrendered the cylinder and regulator on 25.02.2011. Complainant sent a notice to both opposite parties on 21.06.2011 which is marked as Ext.A2, requesting to refund the security deposit of ` 5000 made at the time of availing connection. Both opposite parties received the notice. 1st opposite party sent a reply marked as Ext.A3 contending that the amount collected towards connection fee is not refundable. Even then the governing body of the Federation has taken decision to refund ` 2500 after deducting the connection charge and registration fee on the event of surrendering the regulator and cylinder to the concerned society by the customer. The amount will be disbursed through the society only after executing a consent letter by the customer agreeing for the above decision of the Federation.
Ext.A1 is the surrendering certificate dated 24.01.2012 which shows that complainant have already surrendered the cylinders and regulator before 2nd opposite party on 25.02.2011. Complainant alleges that opposite party collected security deposit of ` 5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) agreeing to refund the same at the time of surrendering connection. As such the unilateral decision taken by the governing body of opposite party is not at all binding to the complainant. It is the specific case of the complainant that there was deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party in supplying gas to the customers. Opposite parties are having bounden duty to provide gas to the customers properly. When there is default in the services, the customers can demand for return of the security amount after surrendering the cylinders and regulator.
Hence the complainant is entitled to get refunding of the security amount of ` 5000. Hence we are having the opinion that all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund ` 5000 to the complainant. Considering the peculiar situation we are avoiding cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund ` 5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Certificate from bank dated 24.01.2012.
A2. Lawyer notice dated 21.06.2011.
A3. Letter dated 02.07.2011
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
