Delhi

East Delhi

CC/280/2016

SHABANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUBHA GAS - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 280/16

 

Ms. Shabana

D/o Shri Khalil Ahmed

R/o House No. B-232,

Jawahar Mohalla

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. M/s. Anubha Gas Agency

D-18, Pandav Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

10^th Floor, Core-1, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                          …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 01.06.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 21.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 25.01.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Shabana against M/s. Anubha Gas Agency (OP-1) and M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Shabana was the consumer of LPG cylinder of M/s. Anubha Gas Agency (OP-1) vide connection no.7101011195 and card serial no. 0715305451.  It was stated that all the consumers are covered under the policy no. 32320048151300,00,0025, issued by OP-2.

            It was further stated that the complainant booked a cylinder on 08.03.2016 and received on the same day.  On 25.03.2016 at about 7.30 a.m. when the complainant opened the regulator of the cylinder, there was fire.  DD was registered in the P.S. Pandav Nagar vide no. 65B/2016 dated 30.03.2016. 

            The fire brigade tried to control the fire, however, the cylinder got burst due to which the complainant lost cash Rs. 12,000/-, costly household articles, gold articles, clothes and wall of the house also damaged.  The complainant lodged a complaint in the office of OP-1 on 25.03.2016 and submitted all the papers as required, but she did not get any response.

            The complainant was shocked when OP refused to pass her claim and showed inability to pay the claim amount due to which the complainant suffered mental pain and agony.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to both OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-  alongwith 18% interest on account of loss due to explosion of cylinder; Rs. 2,00,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and      Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.   

3.         In the reply, OP-1 have stated that incident of bursting of cylinder happened at the ground floor and the address of the complainant registered with OP-1 was on 1^st floor. 

It was further stated that the alleged cylinder was under use without considering any safety norm as was required for its installation for use with proper platform for installing of cylinder.  The cylinder was under use of local regulator and local made green colour rubber tube which was totally against the safety norm for use of gas cylinder.    Other facts have also been denied.

In the written statement, filed on behalf of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that OP-1 submitted the Public Liability Claim Form with them and they appointed a surveyor, Shri Naresh Jain to assess the loss suffered by the complainant.  The surveyor submitted the surveyor report and assessed the total loss for a sum of Rs. 19,500/- and recommended the claim not payable due to different location and recommended to close the file as NO CLAIM as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 

            It was submitted that the address of the complainant registered with OP-1 as ‘B-232, 1^st Floor, Jawahar Mohalla, Patparganj, Delhi – 110 091 as evident by the cylinder receipt dated 08.03.2016, issued by OP-1.  The complainant was residing on the 1^st floor and the alleged occurrence of fire took place on the ground floor of the premises.  Hence, the claim was repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy.    

It was stated that OP-2 repudiated the claim on the ground “Loss is not covered under the policy as the location was ground floor and coverage of location is first floor as per official address registered with the insured” vide repudiation letter dated 19.05.2016.

It was further submitted that the complainant had not filed any documentary proof regarding the alleged loss caused to her in the fire as alleged by her.  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas. 
5. n support of its case, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.    She has got exhibited documents such as copy of Adhaar card (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of connection book and bill of cylinder (Ex.CW-1/2 & 1/3), DD entry of complaint dated 30.03.2016 (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of complaint dated 25.03.2016 registered in the office of OP-1 (Ex.CW-1/5) and copy of fire report (Ex.CW-1/6).

In defence, OP-2 have examined Ms. Kavita Jain who have also deposed on oath.She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.She has also got exhibited documents such as copy of claim form dated 25.03.2016 (Ex. R-1), copy of survey report dated 16.05.2016 (Ex. R-2 colly.), copy of claim repudiation letter dated 19.05.2016 (Ex. R-3), copy of cylinder receipt dated 08.03.2016 (Ex. R-4) and copy of policy with its terms and conditions (Ex. R-5 colly.).

After filing the written statement, OP-1 stopped appearing.Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2). The  only argument which has been taken on behalf of M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) was that loss was not covered under the policy as the location was ground floor and coverage of location was first floor as per official address registered with the insured.

            On the other hand, counsel for the complainant have stated that they were the owner of whole of the premises,

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of complainant Shabana and Ms. Kavita Jain, Administrative Officer of M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2). 

In the testimony of complainant, she has got exhibited receipt of consumer no. 7101011195 (Ex.CW-1/2), receipt of gas cylinder        (Ex.CW-1/3) and other documents (Ex.CW-1/4, 1/5 & 1/6), DD entry made by the police, complaint made with the gas agency and fire report of Delhi Fire Service.  The gas connection receipt and the payment receipt    (Ex.CW-1/2 & 1/3) show the address of the complainant as B-232, 1^st Floor, Jawahar Mohalla, Patparganj, Delhi. 

However, if the testimony of Kavita Jain, Adminstrative Officer of M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2)  is examined, she has also got exhibited gas cylinder receipt dated 08.03.2016 issued by gas agency     (Ex. R-4) showing the same address as recorded in the documents filed by the complainant as B-232, 1^st Floor, Jawahar Mohalla,  Patparganj, Delhi. 

Thus, from the testimony of the complainant as well as Kavita Jain, it comes out that the address of the premises as given by the complainant and accepted by M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) was of B-232, 1^st Floor, Jawahar Mohalla, Patparganj, Delhi.

            To ascertain as to whether the place of fire which was at the first floor was covered under the policy was not, a look has to be made to the survey report (Ex.R-2).  In the survey report, it was stated that the cylinder was delivered at their house B-232, 1^st Floor, Jawahar Mohalla, Patparganj, Delhi which was installed at the ground floor on the day of incident.  However, the same report states that the affected premises was of ground floor. The premises of the customer was a two storey building built on a plot of 30 sq. yds.  The fire incident occurred on the ground floor consisting of a room of 8’ x 8’ which was used as kitchen cum bedroom. 

Thus, from the survey report itself, it comes out that whole of the premises belongs to the complainant.  When the incident has happened and as per the survey report, the complainant have suffered a loss due to leakage from the gas cylinder due to which gas cylinder and gas regulator were badly damaged causing damage to the room entry door, window, portion of roof tiles and walls, it does not matter the cylinder was kept at the ground floor where the fire took place. Therefore, the same was covered under the policy. Even, the surveyor report does not list the items which were badly damaged. 

The surveyor has assessed the loss of a sum of Rs. 38,000/- and after depreciation of Rs. 18,500/-, he  has put the net loss as Rs. 19,500/-.  Though he has not listed the items damaged in the survey report, but the items which were reported to the police on 30.03.2016 state that an amount of Rs. 12,000/- cash, television, single bed, gold items, silver items, quilts, blanket, suitcase, utensils, cloths, set-up box and fan are as per       Ex.CW-1/4.  The fact that survey report have not assessed the actual damage which was caused to the complainant as per the items reported to the police in Ex.CW-1/4, it comes out that the loss which the complainant have suffered was much more than the total loss assessed by the surveyor as Rs. 38,000/-.      

When there has been liability of the insurance company and they have not given the compensation as claimed, certainly, there has been deficiency on their part which has caused mental pain and sufferings.  No liability can be fastened on Anubha Gas Agency as they are the distributor of gas cylinders.  When there has been deficiency on the part of insurance company, the complainant was entitled for the claimed amount. 

In view of the above, we order that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) shall pay an amount of Rs. 38,000/- (Loss assessed by the surveyor) with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.  We further award a sum of Rs.  30,000/- on account of compensation which includes the cost of litigation.

            This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied, the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order. 

 Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President