This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             K.V. Krishna Rao, Aavula Ramu, Advocates for complainants; and of           Sri. Mandadapu Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; and of Sri. Kothapalli Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.3; and of Sri. T. Shyam Babu, Advocate for opposite party No.4; opposite parties No. 1 refused called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant No. 1 and 2 are permanent residents of Edjrlapally, Kothur village, Wajedu Mandal, Khammam district have purchased  gas connection with No 645605 from Opposite party No.1 and 2 and got one Gas cylinder, one regulator, one gas stove  which are prescribed by the HP gas company. The complainant number 1 and 2 jointly using the said gas connection and in the month of January 2011 they have noticed some defect in the regulator and approached the opposite party No.1 to replace the defective regulator but he had repaired it and returned it back, after two months again the same defect was found and when they demanded the opposite party No.1 for replacement of the regulator the opposite party No.1 returned the same after repairing and was dodged the matter for replacement stating that there is no sock.  On 09-06-2012 the family members  of the complaints after cooking  went to their agricultural field by locking the said house and  at 10.00 hrs the  said complainants house was gutted due to the leakage of  the gas and blast of  cylinders with which  the gold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/-, silver of Rs.10,000/-,Necklace of Rs.20,000/-,cooking vessels of Rs.70,000/-,clothes of Rs.20,000/- and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and other things totally worth of Rs.7,00,000/- was burnt in flames. The complainant approached the Police and Revenue authorities, the VRO conducted the panchanama on the instruction of the Mandal Tahsildar Wajedu and got issued the Fire accident Certificate stating that the fire accident has happened due to the leakage of the gas.  The complainants got issued Legal notice to the opposite party No.1 and 2 and opposite party No.2 has given evasive reply, therefore the complainant has filed this complaint to pay of Rs.8,00,000/-from the opposite parties. 

3.      In support of the complainant contention they have filed the following documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-6.

4.      The complainants have filed I.A.No.69/2014 praying to implead the United India Insurance Company Ltd, Choutuppall, Nalgonda district as opposite party No.3 and The Regional office H.P.Gas Company, Secunderabad as opposite party No.4.  The  said IA was allowed and both as opposite party No.3 and 4 were brought on record as to the party to the proceedings, the complainants carried out the amendments and also filed  fair copy.

5.      On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 appeared through their counsels and filed counter and to the opposite party No.1 notice was not served. I.A No.24/2013 was filed by the complainants praying to appoint a advocate commissioner to serve the notices in person to the opposite party No.1 for his appearance in this matter, the same IA was allowed and T. Srinivasa Rao advocate was appointed  as Commissioner and he has returned the warrant stating that the opposite party No.1 is residing in  the village hence he was unable to serve the notice, the IA petition was closed and no further steps were taken  by the complainant to serve the notice to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 contended in their counter that the Opposite party No.1 is not a sub dealer to him and in no way concern with his business and he is un-authorized person to deal his products or services. He has contended further that he has sold a HP gas connection with one cylinder, one regulator, a stove of HP gas company make to the complainant No.1 and denied about the defective regulator and approaching him through  opposite party No.1, and also denied the fire accident caused by the leakage of the Gas.  The opposite party No.2  stated  in his counter that the complainant have not give any  petition before the Police and Fire  authorities and denied the panchanama conducted by the VRO. The opposite party No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited stated in their counter that they have insured only the opposite party No. 2 for an accidental bodily injured or accidental damages to the property at insured premises, or at any registered addresses of customers while being installed by his employees and while gas cylinders are being carried by the insured or by his employees Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite party No.4 contended in his counter that Hindustan Petroleum Corporaration (HPCL) is government enterprises having registered office in Mumbai and have regional and zonal offices in various palaces of the country, carrying refining and marketing of Petroleum products with highest safety. The opposite party No.2 is a distributor of opposite party No.4 Company on principal to Principal basis.  The opposite party No.2 as a distributor has entered and executed an agreement with opposite party No.4 company  and by virtue of clause  No 18 of the said agreement the opposite party No.2 is to act as  Principal  and fully indemnifies the  opposite party No.4 corporation.  The opposite party No.4 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission 1995 CPJ 78 in Flame Gas Services, Bikaner and ors Vs Akelesh Kumar and others and also  Hon’ble SC in IOCL V/s Consumer Protection Council Kerala reported in 1993 (6) SC 645 where in the  complaint against the Oil Corporation was rejected and further contended in their counter that the clause 19 and 20 of the said agreement at all time the opposite party No.2  indemnify totally against all losses, damages, claims, suits and other wise arising from connections with injury to person or property, short deliveries or otherwise how so ever  in connection with the matters covered the agreement. the opposite party No.4 has never appointed the opposite party No.1 sub dealer and the opposite party No.2 is only the authorized their LPG Distributor, through the opposite party No.2 supplied one gas cylinder one regulator and one gas stove as per the company conditions to the complainant and complainant never approached neither opposite party No.2 nor opposite party No.4 for repair or malfunction of his regulator.  The opposite party No.1 is not authorized person to deal the repairs or products of the opposite party No.4 Corporation and on any illegal acts of opposite party No.1 is alone responsible.  The opposite party No.4 contended that the tiled house gutted in the fire accident is false and baseless and he has denied the approaching the revenue authorities, panchanama conducted by the VRO on the order of the Mandal Tahsildar and the complainant have not got on record any documents to support his contention and never gave a report to fire service authorities.  The opposite party No.4 is not aware of legal notice dt. 25-09-2012 to pay the damages got issued by the complainant.  The opposite party No.4 stated that they have not supplied defective regulator nor at deficiency of service and if any deficiency of service or any fault found by the Hon’ble Forum liability may on the opposite party No.2 because of principal to principal basis, which is as per the agreement.  It is further stated that the complainant has no privity of contract between opposite party No.4 therefore complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.  The opposite party No.2 have filed insurance policy which is marked as exhibit B-1.        

Ex.B-1:- Insurance policy No 052282/46/11/22/00000024, valid for the period from 00:00 hours of 19-11-2011 to Midnight of 18-12-2012.

6.      The complainants and opposite parties No.2 to 4 have filed written arguments.  

7.      Upon perusing the recorded material documents, facts of the case and the circumstances as stated, now the points that arose for consideration are,

1)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed in the complaint under the deficiency of service and supplying defective product?

2)  If complainants are entitled for.  How much of amount?

Point No. 1:-       

          The complaint No.1 is consumer of opposite parties No.2 and 4 which was accepted by the opposite party No.2 and he had supplied on cost a HP cylinder, regular, and stove. The complainant No.2 is not concerned and complainant No.2 is not a consumer and to substantiate his contention he has not filed any valid documents,  only the complainant No.1 has purchased the connection but The complainant No.1 and 2 are jointly using the said gas connection for their use in their house and in the month of January they found some defect in the said regulator upon suspecting the defect in the regulator, they have approached the opposite party No.1 for replacement of defective regulator and opposite party No.1 has got it repaired, second time also the opposite party No.1 got repaired on the context of no stocks.  Here the opposite party No.1 have not served the notice and he did not appear.  The IA.No.24/2013 was filed by the complainants to appoint commissioner / advocate to serve the notice to opposite party No.1 and the IA was allowed, and appointed Sri.T. Srinivasa Rao as advocate commissioner, the said commissioner / advocate has returned the warrant stating that the opposite party No.1 is residing in the village and commissioner was unable to serve the notice and on that the IA was disposed off. After disposal of the IA the complainant have not initiated any further steps to serve the notice to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 was not brought on record and was not made as party to the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 stated that the opposite party No.1 was nowhere concerned with his distribution ship and opposite party No.1 is not at all a sub dealer to his company and have never approached the opposite party No.2 for defective product.  The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence, nor any substantiate evidence of approaching the opposite party No.2 and demanding him for a new regulator.   On 09-06-2012  fire accident happened due to the leakage of gas in the complainants house was gutted and incurred loss to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- averment of complainant was not supported by any documentary proof except  filing a fire accident certificate i.e. Exhibit A2  and filed residential certificates for both the complainants which are executed as Exhibit A4 and Exhibit A5 issued by VRO Mormur, it is not explained properly, how the VRO Murmur is concerned with Edjerlapally, Kothur village of Wajedu Mandal.  The complainants have filed photocopy of police complaint, which is marked as Exhibit A3, which shows it was filed after one month of the said accident i.e. dt.09-07-2012 that too seeking the police Wajedu to get the amount from opposite party No.1 and 2 as promised by opposite party No.1 as on the date of  the said accident.  The complainants have not averred properly and they have not filed a fire accident petition either before the police or to the fire department.  They have stated in their complaint that at 10:00 hours when no one is in the said house the fire accident has took place and they have not furnished any proper evidence that due to the gas leakage only the fire accident has occurred.  The fire accident certificate issued by Mandal Tahsildar, Wajedu i.e. Exhibit A2 shows only the accident has happened due to the leakage of gas, a tiled house in Edjarlapally, Kothur village has gutted with house holding articles and documents like ration card, LIC documents and Patta Pass Books, but no where the Tahsildar certificate has stated that the worth of the house, value of the utensils. No surveyor report, nor panchanama report is filed to substantiate the complainants contention.   The opposite parties No.2 and 4 stated that opposite party No.1 is not a sub dealer and unauthorized person to handle the transaction of their business.  The opposite party No.1 has not brought on record and notices were not served to him.  The opposite parties No.3 and 4 have got impleaded by virtue of IA.No.69/2014 and opposite party No.3 filed counter along with the policy copy of opposite party No.2 and contended that they have issued insurance policy, which is marked as exhibit B-1 in favour of opposite party No.2 for accidental body injure and accidental damage to the property of opposite party No.2 and his employees.  It is only to opposite party No.2 reimbursement is for his security but not to the third parties, as such the complainants are third parties to the opposite party No.3 and are not liable to pay as per the agreement of the said insured policy between opposite parties No.2 and 3.The opposite party No.4 is a regional office of Hindustan Petroleum gas company at Secunderabad they were impleaded as opposite party No.4 by virtue of same IA.No.69/2014 and were stated in their counter that they have an agreement between opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No.2 has to indemnify the Hindustan Petroleum corporation i.e. opposite party No.4 for any damages and loss as per clause 18, 19 and 20 of their agreement on the basis of principal to principal, and as per it the opposite party No.2 is principal is entirely liable for any consequences.  The opposite party No.4 has not filed any such agreement copy executed by them to substantiate their contention therefore it is not taken into consideration.  As no one is there in the said gutted house the cause of accident due to the gas leakage is said to be suspicious that how fire has ignited and cooking gas got fire.  The complainants have not substantiated this fact except filing exhibit A2, however basing on the EX.A2 we are of the opinion that the accident may have happened due to gas leakage and complainant No.1 is being a consumer should have approach the opposite party No.2 but the complainant No.1 has approached opposite party No.1 who is nowhere concerned and the complainant is failed to brought him on to the record.  The complainants have approached unauthorized person who has repaired and returned the defective regulator gives a lacunae on the part of complainants. The opposite party No.3 has insured opposite party No.2 persons and property and does not have any role in payment of compensation for house property of third parties. Therefore in pursuance of documents and facts of the case we opined that the opposite parties No.2 to 4 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and the point No.1 is answered against the complainants.

Point No.2:-

The point No.2 does not arise as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and no question of amount is to be paid to the complainant.  Hence the point No.2 is also against to the complainant.

8.      In the result complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 4^th day of August, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                    Member              President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

 Khammam.