Haryana

Sonipat

CC/149/2014

VINOD S/O HUKAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. KARAN SINGH,2. AJAY GAS SERVICE ,3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH VATS

16 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.149 of 2014

Instituted on: 27.05.2014                 

Date of order: 08.06.2016

 

Vinod son of Hukam, resident of H.No.634/2, Village Kundli, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Karan Singh Gas Agency, near Beeswa Mile, Distt. Sonepat.

2.M/s Ajay Gas Service, 63, Main Market, Sector 14, Sonepat.

3.Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Regd. Office 17 Jamsed G, Tata road, Mumbai 100020.

4.National Ins. Co. Ltd Branch old DC road, Opp. Gurudwara, Upper Andhra Bank, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.Ashish Vats, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.SP Verma, Adv. for respondent no.1.

Respondent no.2 given-up.

Sh.Pawan Ranga, Adv. for respondent no.3.

Sh.DS Malik, Adv. for respondent no.4.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 4.4.2014, the complainant get refilled a gas cylinder from the respondent no.1 and on 13.4.2014, the same was connected with the gas stove.  But the said gas cylinder got leaked and the same caught fire and due to sudden fire, hand, leg and various parts of the complainant’s wife were burnt badly.  The house hold articles i.e. freeze, washing machine, sewing machine, double bed, inverter and clothes were also burnt.  FIR was also lodged on 13.4.2014 with the concerned police station.  The complainant due to the said fire, has suffered a loss of Rs.5 lacs.  The complainant has requested the respondents to compensate him, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1, 3 and 4 have appeared through their respective counsel, whereas respondent no.2 was given up.

          The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant got new cylinder on 4.4.2014 from the respondent no.1.  The wife of the complainant was not using the gas cylinder in the separate kitchen.  Whereas the contents of the written application at the hands of the complainant dated 18.4.2014 made it clear that his wife was using the gas cylinder while sitting on the earth and the incident took place at the juncture when she has already prepared half of the total food.  The investigation has revealed that the accident took place because of the fault of the complainant’s wife who was conducting the kitchen work in the room and not in the kitchen which is against the norms and directions of safety measures.  A small cylinder was also found burnt in the room alongwith the cylinder of HPCL.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation as the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that  the respondent no.3 is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.  There is on privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no.3.  There was no  separate kitchen with the complainant at the time of alleged incident.  The alleged incident took place only because of the fault of the complainant who was doing an illegal act of refilling from cylinder in a small cylinder at his own.    The small cylinder at the place of occurrence was also found.   The refilling of small cylinder from the cylinder in question by the wife of the complainant is against the norms and directions of safety measures. The material of the cylinders used by the respondent no.3 are of good quality and not even a single cylinder can be found having leakage because of low quality material.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.4 in its written statement has taken almost the same and similar pleas which has been taken by the respondent no.1 and 3 in their written statement.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to leakage in the gas cylinder, fire broke out & due to sudden fire, hand, leg and various parts of the complainant’s wife were burnt badly.  The house hold articles i.e. freeze, washing machine, sewing machine, double bed, inverter and clothes were also burnt.  FIR was also lodged on 13.4.2014 with the concerned police station.  The complainant due to the said fire, has suffered a loss of Rs.5 lacs.  The complainant has requested the respondents to compensate him, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the complainant got new cylinder on 4.4.2014 from the respondent no.1.  The wife of the complainant was not using the gas cylinder in the separate kitchen.  Whereas the contents of the written application at the hands of the complainant dated 18.4.2014 made it clear that his wife was using the gas cylinder while sitting on the earth and the incident took place at the juncture when she has already prepared half of the total food.  The investigation has revealed that the accident took place because of the fault of the complainant’s wife who was conducting the kitchen work in the room and not in the kitchen which is against the norms and directions of safety measures.  A small cylinder was also found burnt in the room alongwith the cylinder of HPCL.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation as the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds. 

          Ld.counsel for the respondent no.3 has also submitted that  the respondent no.3 is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.  There is on privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no.3.  There was no  separate kitchen with the complainant at the time of alleged incident.  The alleged incident took place only because of the fault of the complainant who was doing an illegal act of refilling from cylinder in a small cylinder at his own.    The small cylinder at the place of occurrence was also found.   The refilling of small cylinder from the cylinder in question by the wife of the complainant is against the norms and directions of safety measures. The material of the cylinders used by the respondent no.3 are of good quality and not even a single cylinder can be found having leakage because of low quality material.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. counsel for the respondents no.1,3 and 4.  There is no cogent evidence to prove that due to refilling of small cylinder from the cylinder in question by the complainant’s wife, the fire incident has taken place.

          We have perused the document Ex.C8 i.e. the receipt issued by the Fire Office, Municipal Committee, Sonepat dated 15.4.2014 and in this report, it is mentioned that due to fire, one TV, one freeze and clothes were burnt.  Sunita wife of the complainant also suffered burn injuries on her person.

          So, it is proved that the fire has broke out due to defective cylinder.  The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.5 lacs as compensation from the respondents, which in our view, is on a very higher side.  However, we hereby direct the respondent no.4 National Insurance Company to pay lumpsum Rs.80,000/- (Rs.eighty thousand) on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 3 to the complainant for supplying defective gas cylinder and for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.4.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                    (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF                     President

    SNP                           DCDRF SNP.

 

ANNOUNCED: 08.06.2016