BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT.S .K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 470/2003 Filed on 01..12..2003<br /> Dated: 30..05..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Sivadasan Nair, Jyothis, Thycaud, Pirappanicode – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> ((By Adv. Koliyacode V. Suresh)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.The Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited, Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam.<br /> (By Adv. Nalanchira P. Krishnankutty)<br /> 2.The Secretary, Koliyacode Consumer Co-operative Society, Koliyacode – P.O. 695 607.<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 03..03..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 03..05..2008, the Forum on 30..05..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The complainant Mr. Sivadasan Nair obtained a Neethi Gas connection from the 2nd opposite party and he had paid Rs. 6,038/- for the same. But there was frequent failure on the part of the 2nd opposite party in regular supply of gas. And also the complainant alleges that the market rate of Neethi gas is higher than other gases. Hence the complainant demanded to refund of the deposit amount or surrendering the connection. To that effect the complainant has submitted an application to the opposite parties and the opposite parties sent reply to the complainant. In the reply they stated that there is no provision to refund the deposit amount. The opposite parties also stated that the 1st opposite party is bound only to refund Rs. 2,500/-. The complainant alleges that the above conditions were not informed to the complainant at the time of registration. As per the complaint the opposite parties were utter failure in their service. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. In this case the 1st opposite party filed version, but the 2nd opposite party did not contest the case. The 1st opposite party admitted that the 1st opposite party had given Neethi gas connection to the complainant on payment of Rs.4,750/-. The 1st opposite party stated that they supplied the refills very punctually as and when demanded by the complainant. They supplied the refills in accordance with the rate agreed by the complainant. It was not agreed by the 1st opposite party to supply refills in the prevailing market rate of other gases. And also they stated that the 1st opposite party is unable to supply refills at the subsidiary market rate. And the 1st opposite party also submitted that the amount of Rs.5,750/- collected by them from the complainant is for connection charge and cannot be given back. And also they contended that there is no deficiency or defective service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party.<br /> 3. The following points are raised for trial:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service in supply of gas?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?<br /> (iii)Whether opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable?<br /> 4. Points (i) to (iii) : In this case the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the reply letter issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of judgment O.P.No.169/01 and Ext.P3 is the copy of judgment Appeal No.375/02. The 1st opposite party also filed proof affidavit and produced conditions of granting LPG connection.<br /> 5. In this case the complainant has not produced any document to show that he had paid Rs.6,038/- for the connection of Neethi Gas to the opposite parties. No material on record or evidence adduced by the complainant to substantiate the complaint. The complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is no document to show that he purchased the gas regularly for cooking and no documents to show that opposite parties failed to supply gas as and when required by the complainant and no document to prove that the opposite parties' delayed in supply of refilled gas cylinder to the complainant as and when booked by the complainant.<br /> 6. But the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- as registration fee and also paid Rs. 4,750/- towards connection fee and cost of 2 refills and regulator. And also in the reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party admitted that the complainant had remitted Rs.5,750/- for Neethi gas connection.<br /> 7. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has no right to demand back the registration charges and the purchase amount of cylinder and regulator since there is an undertaking given by the complainant to the opposite parties, but not demanding back the connection charges. This will be evident from the copy of the conditions produced by the opposite parties.<br /> 8. For the above mentioned reasons this Forum finds that it is the duty of the opposite parties to cancel the gas connection as and when the complainant demanded for cancellation. As per the reply notice the 1st opposite party agreed to refund Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant when he surrenders 2 cylinders and regulator before the 2nd opposite party. In view of foregoing discussion this Forum passed the order as follows:<br /> The complaint is allowed in part. The complainant shall surrender 2 cylinders and regulator to the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party shall refund Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant. Time for compliance two months, failing which 12% interest will be given till the realisation of the said amount. No cost.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />