Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble presiding Member

1.      Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed by original opposite party Nos.1 & 2; feeling  aggrieved by the same order dtd.30.11.2005, passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. 94/2004, by which the said complaint has been partly allowed.

          Both the parties in both appeals are hereinafter referred to as their original status in the complaint as complainant and opposite party Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, for the sake of convenience.

2.      The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is as under.

i.        The complainant Kusum Manohar Khanke obtained Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) connection from opposite party No.2, who is the dealer of opposite party No.1 - gas producing company, on 20.12.1999.  On 16.03.2001 due to leaking of the said gas an explosion took place in the gas cylinder in the house of the complainant.  In that explosion Mr Manohar Khanke, the husband of the complainant sustained burn injuries and died during treatment in the hospital on 22.03.2001.  Moreover, in that accident household articles of complainant were also burnt and damaged. Police recorded entry in the Death Information Register (DIR) at Serial No.23/2001 at Police Station of Chandrapur in respect of accidental death of Mr Manohar Khanke. Moreover, final report after said enquiry was submitted by the Police to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur on 30.06.2001.  The postmortem examination of the dead body was also done.  But spot Panchanama was not prepared by the Police. The complainant also gave oral intimation of the accident to opposite party No.2. Officers of opposite party No.1 also paid visit to the house of the complainant.

ii.       The complainant learnt that the opposite party No.1 – manufacturer of LPG has taken insurance policy from opposite party No.3 and so also the opposite party No.2 / dealer has also taken insurance policy from opposite party No.4.  The complainant issued notice through advocate Mr Y S Borkar on 29.01.2004 claiming from opposite party No.1 & 2 compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs. 

3. It is alleged by the complainant that within three weeks from death of her husband, she had submitted death certificate of her husband, postmortem examination report and police papers to opposite party No.2 for making insurance claim, but her insurance claim was not settled.  Therefore, she again issued notice dtd.24.02.2004 to opposite party No.2 and demanded the insurance claim.  Advocate Mr Suresh Chittawar on behalf of opposite party No.2 gave reply to that notice informing the complainant that her claim was communicated to Insurance Company and the process about the same is pending. 

4. Therefore, the complainant through advocate Ms Y S Borkar issued notice to New India Insurance Company and made a claim.  Thereafter, advocate of the opposite party No.1 sent reply of the notice dtd.12.04.2004 informing that all the documents have been already forwarded to opposite party No.3 - United India Insurance Company vide letter dtd.05.03.2002.

5. Thereafter the complainant through her advocate issued reply to the notice of advocate of opposite party No.1. Advocate of the complainant also issued notice dtd. 27.05.2004 to opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 vide letter dtd.01.06.2004 demanded certain documents from the complainant. Hence, the complainant submitted all those documents to opposite party No.3.

6. The claim of the complainant was not settled and therefore, she filed consumer complaint against opposite party Nos.1 to 4 claiming from them compensation of Rs.4.00 Lacs due to death of her husband Mr Manohar Khanke. She also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. over Rs.4.00 Lacs w.e.f. 16.03.2001. She further claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards physical & mental harassment alongwith cost of litigation.

3.      The opposite party Nos.1 to 4 appeared before the Forum and filed their independent reply and thereby each of them resisted

the complaint.

4.      The opposite party No.1 raised an objection that the complaint is not maintainable against it (opposite party No.1) as the relationship in between opposite party No.1 & 2 is principle to principle and there was no privity of contract in between complainant and opposite party No.1. It is admitted that all consumers of opposite party No.1 are duly insured against the incidents and losses caused by untoward incidents. The opposite party No.1 lodged the claim of the complainant without undue delay with the opposite party No.3 / Insurance Company.  The officer of opposite party No.1 had also paid visits to the house of the complainant from time to time and asked her to produce required documents for processing her claim.  She did not provide the necessary documents as per demand of opposite party No.3. The incident occurred because of negligence of the complainant as stated in detail in the reply to Para Nos.4 & 5 of the complaint.  The deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 is not established by the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 had prayed that the complaint as against it may be dismissed.

5.      The opposite party No.2 in its reply made submission in brief is as under.

The opposite party No.2 had furnished copies of inquest report to opposite party No.1 for doing needful. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 had also informed opposite party No.4 - Insurance Company about the incident in which the death of husband of the complainant was occurred.  The incident of fire took place due to own negligence of the complainant as stated in detail in the Para No.3 of the reply.  Moreover, there is a considerable delay in lodging report of the incident to the Police. The opposite party No.2 pursued the claim of the complainant with opposite party No.4 but due to negligence of the complainant her claim was not settled.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 had prayed that the complaint may be dismissed as against it.

6.      The opposite party No.3 in its reply resisted the complaint by denying entire case of the complainant.  However, it submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It submitted that for the first time notice was issued to opposite party No.3 by the complainant on 28.01.2004 making the claim. The opposite party No.3 had called upon the complainant to furnish all the relevant documents, but she did not produce all the documents as called for. Moreover, complicated questions of law & facts are involved in the complaint and hence elaborated enquiry is needed, which is beyond jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.  Therefore, opposite party No.3 had prayed that the complaint may be dismissed

7.      The opposite party No.4 in its reply raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the complaint on the ground that no claim was submitted by the complainant to it and that notice dtd.12.04.2004 was issued by the opposite party No.4 to the complainant demanding important documents.  However, after three years of the incident, the complainant had submitted claim to opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and the claim was made to opposite party No.4 only on 27.05.2004 by notice and therefore the claim is barred by limitation.  Hence, it was prayed by opposite party No.4 that the complaint against it may be dismissed.

8.      The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record found that opposite party Nos.1 & 2 did not take prompt steps for getting settled the insurance claim of the complainant and they caused harassment to the complainant from time to time an therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Moreover, the Forum below also held that as per terms & conditions of the policies, the complainant is entitled to Rs.1.15 Lacs from opposite party No.3 and Rs.15,000/- from opposite party No.4. Therefore, the Forum below directed opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000/- each. The Forum below also directed opposite party No.3 to pay to the complainant Rs.1.15 Lac with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.08.2001. The Forum below also directed opposite party No.4 to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 9%p.a. from 01.08.2001.

9.      Feeling aggrieved, opposite party No.1 filed appeal No.A/06/42, whereas the opposite party No.2 filed appeal No.a/04/2006. We have heard advocates both appeals and perused entire record & proceedings of both appeals. 

10.    The learned advocate of the appellant No.1 mainly submitted that the Forum below erred in saddling the compensation of Rs.25,000/- on opposite party No.1 when there was no privity of contract in between opposite party No.1 & complainant.  He also submitted that otherwise also the opposite party No.1 had taken every step on time for getting insurance claim by the complainant.  Thus, according to him the Forum below has not properly appreciated evidence brought on record and passed erroneous order directing the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order to that effect may be set aside.

11.    On the other hand, learned advocate of opposite party No.2 submitted that the Forum erred in directing the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, though the incident of fire took place due to own negligence of the complainant.  He also submitted that the relevant intimation was already given by opposite party Nos.1 to the complainant at the relevant time as per document filed on record and the Forum below has not properly considered the said documents. Moreover, he also submitted that opposite party No.2 had also informed opposite party No.4 - Insurance Company without delay about the incident of fire and therefore the impugned order may be set aside as regards direction given to opposite party No.2 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- the complainant.

12.    Advocates of opposite party Nos.3 & 4 made common submission that opposite party Nos.3 & 4 have not filed any appeal against the impugned order. However, in their arguments they reiterated the aforesaid case of opposite party Nos.3 & 4 as set out in their reply and submitted that the appeal as against opposite party Nos.3 & 4 may be dismissed.

13.    At the outset, we find that as opposite party Nos.3 & 4 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, they have to comply with the direction given in the impugned order under Clause Nos.2 & 3.  Thus, opposite party Nos.3 & 4 cannot raise any ground in these appeals against the liability fastened on them as per impugned order.

14.    Thus, these appeals are restricted to compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Forum below respectively on opposite party Nos.1 & 2. 

15.    We find that there was no direct contract in between opposite party No.1 and the complainant in as much as LPG connection was taken by the complainant from opposite party No.2 by making payment as stated in detail in the complaint. The opposite party No.1 had taken appropriate steps for settlement of insurance claim of the complainant.

16.    It is also pertinent to note that for the first time the complainant served a notice dtd.29.01.2004 claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs from opposite party No.1.  No such claim was made by the complainant to opposite party No.1 in writing till 29.01.2004 though the death of her husband was occurred on 22.03.2001 due to explosion in the LPG cylinder.  In our view, when no information in writing was given for making any claim from opposite party No.1 till 29.01.2004, it cannot be said that the opposite party No.1 is responsible for delay in settlement of the claim of the complainant for not taking steps for settlement of claim of the complainant.

17.    On the contrary, a letter dtd.06.04.2001 was written by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 calling explanation from opposite party No.2 for not informing opposite party No.1 about major accident and loss of human life in that accident.  There is also reference of that letter on page No.13 of the impugned order. Thus, we find that it was opposite party No.2 only who did not take prompt steps for settlement of claim of the complainant.

18.    Thus, we find that the Forum without properly considering the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion about the liability of opposite party No.1 for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. We find from documents filed on record that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and hence order passed against opposite party No.1 about payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- needs to be set aside.

19.    As regards the liability of opposite party No.2 about payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/-, we find that the Forum below has properly considered the documents for fixing the said liability on opposite party No.2.

20.    The opposite party No.2 had learnt about the accident immediately after its occurrence.  The opposite party No.2 in his cross-examination admitted that after 2 to 3 days of the incident the opposite party No.2 changed the rubber tube and regulator of the house of the complainant and it was told to complainant by opposite party No.2 that she will get compensation from Insurance Company.  However, opposite party No.2 did not give any information to the complainant, immediately after incident, as regard the insurance policy.  The complainant resides at Chandrapur and the opposite party No.2 also carries its dealership of LPG at Chandrapur.  Therefore, it was the sole responsibility of opposite party No.2 to provide full assistance to the complainant for providing her insurance claim under the insurance policy obtained by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.4. However, the opposite party No.2 did not provide any such prompt assistance to the complainant. The information about the said incident was given for the first time by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.4 / Insurance Company on 29.01.2004 as seen from the document filed on record and as seen from the reply given by opposite party No.4 to the complaint.  Therefore, we hold that the Forum below has rightly held the opposite party No.2 responsible for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for providing deficient service to her.

21.    In the result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the appeal No.a/04/2006 filed by original opposite party No.2 deserves to be dismissed and appeal No.A/06/42 filed by original opposite party No.1 deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the following order is passed.

ORDER

i.        Appeal No.a/04/2006 filed by original opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

ii.       Appeal No.A/06/42 filed by original opposite party No.1 is allowed as under.

          The direction given by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in Clause No.1 of the operative part of the impugned order, directing the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant is set aside.

iii.      Rest of the impugned order is maintained.

iv.      No order as to costs in these appeals.

v.       Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.