Haryana

Ambala

CC/89/2016

Shyam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Ahluwalia

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 89 of 2016

Date of Institution: 11.02.2016

Date of Decision: 20.03.2018

 

Shyam Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh R/o Ward No.1, House No.616, Bank Colony, Hussaini Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

1. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 4&6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001, through its authorised signatory.
2. Rashtriya Gas Sewa, 23-24, Anaj Mandi, Naraingarh (Ambala), through its Manager/ authorised signatory.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 17, 226, Canada Building, 1^st Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai vide Policy Cover No.021700271P101332273 valid from 02.05.2015 to midnight on 01.05.2016.

                                                                                ...................Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for Complainant.

                    Sh. K.C. Jain, Adv. for OP No.1.

                    Sh. S.M. Sharma, Adv. for OP No.2.

                    OP No.3 already ex parte.

                                     

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                  Sh. Shyam Singh, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). The case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of OPs since 08.08.2000, bearing consumer No.2007, S.V. No.502373115, on payment of distribution charges as well as on payment of Rs.100/- towards regulator charges (Annexures C-3, 5) and has been following the instructions issued by OPs and the same were also checked and verified by their authorised mechanic/Inspector vide his report at serial No.2699 dated 11.06.2014 (Annexure C-4) wherein it was reported that the complainant was using the pipe, regulator and Hot plate of ISI mark as provided by the OPs. On 20.11.2015 at about 5.30 AM there was a big blast in the house of the complainant, which resulted into heavy damages to the property of the complainant. The photographs of the damaged property have been annexed by complainant as Annexures 15 to 30. The complainant avers that he immediately reported the matter to higher authorities of the area as well as to police P.S. Naraingarh, where a DDR No.16 dated 20.11.2015 was registered (Annexure C-6). After preliminary investigation by police on dated 20.11.2015, it was reported that the blast occurred due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder (Annexures C-7, 30). According to complainant’ version, the further inquiry revealed that due to defect in the regulator (installed by OPs), the gas started leaking which resulted into a heavy blast in his kitchen. The complainant got the total loss caused to his property estimated by approved valuer Er. Ved Parkash Gupta at Rs.8,28,714/- (Annexures C-8 to 13). The complainant further avers that he had been representing this matter several times to OP No.2, but OP No.2 kept assuring that the matter had been sent to OP No.1 for necessary approval. Accordingly feeling aggrieved, the Complainant sent legal notices dated 18.12.2015 to OP Nos.1 & 2 (Annexure C-1, 2), which allegedly remained unanswered from the opposite side. 
2.                In its reply, OP No.1 has denied the averments raised by the complainant. The OP No.1 blatantly denies that on 20.11.2015 any blast had ever taken place in the kitchen of the Complainant and more so, due to gas leakage from gas cylinder or defect in the regulator. No report regarding such defects prepared by police on investigation was enclosed by the complainant. Moreover, the OP No.1 avers that no information on alleged blast was reported to the Opposite Party. There was no specific mention in the complaint about the fact that someone lighted a match-stick at the site of gas leakage in the absence of which it is incomprehensible for a blast to take place itself. Further, there is no mention in the complaint as to what was the cylinder number, from where the gas was leaking; on which date it was delivered; when the complaint, if any, for leaking of gas was lodged; since when the cylinder was leaking. Moreover, the outcome of police investigation was not disclosed by the complainant. Had there been any defect in the regulator, the same should have been immediately got replaced by the complainant from OP No.2. It is alleged by OP No.1 that no blast as such had even taken place in the kitchen of complainant, rather it took place in the kitchen of his tenant namely Shri Davinder Kumar. OP No.1 further asserted that OP No.2 got registered a DDR bearing No.26 with the Naraingarh Police (Annexure R-1-A) immediately, after coming to know about the aforesaid blast mentioning therein that the blast took place in the rented portion of the said house which was occupied by tenant. The said DDR further reads that the blast took place due to gas leakage from the cylinder which the tenant himself brought from his house situated at Samalkha, district Panipat (Haryana) and that this cylinder had not been taken from OP No.2.
3.                In its reply, OP No.2 has also denied the averments raised by the complainant. It is alleged by OP No.2 that no blast as such had even taken place in the kitchen of complainant, rather it took place in the kitchen of his tenant namely Shri Davinder Kumar. Moreover, OP No.2 asserts that he had sent reply dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure R2/1-4) in response to legal notice dated 18.12.2015 of the complainant.
4.                The Complainant has placed on record an undated affidavit sworn in by his tenant Shri Dharmendra S/o Shri Roshan Lal (Annexure CW 2/A) wherein he has stated that his wife and kids had came to meet him on 19.11.2015; and that on 20.11.2015 at 5.30 AM, a blast occurred due to cylinder gas leakage from the kitchen of complainant and as a result of which he and his wife and kids who were residing in adjacent room received injuries. The affidavit categorically says that the he had made Tiffin arrangements for food for himself and that he had no kitchen for his own use separately. The Complainant has also placed on record another undated affidavit sworn in by Shri Nek Chand S/o Shri Jagir Singh R/o H.No. 630 & 618 Husaini Road Naraingarh (Annexure CW 3/A). The affidavit goes on to state that the underwriter is the neighbour of complainant who on hearing the blast on 20.11.2015 at 5.30 AM went to the complainant’ house and saw that a blast occurred due to cylinder gas leakage from the kitchen of complainant and as a result of which Shri Dharmendra (the tenant of complainant) and his wife and kids who were residing in adjoining room received injuries. The affidavit categorically says that the said tenant had made Tiffin arrangements for food and that the tenant had no kitchen for his own use separately. 
5.                We have heard ld. Counsels for Complainant and OPs and have also perused the case file as well as written statement filed by OPs.
6.                Firstly, we would be like to adjudicate upon the liability of OP No.3. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for complainant towards the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gowramma & Ors. [(2014) CPJ 278 (NC)] wherein it was observed that as per Public Liability Insurance (Non-Industrial Risk) Policy, the Insurance Company agrees to indemnify the loss suffered by a third party, only when the accident was caused at the premises of Gas Agency (in the instant case, OP No.2) or at the registered address of the customer only while the cylinder being installed by the insured and/or his employee or when the accident takes place when the gas cylinder is being carried by Gas Agency (in the instant case, OP No.2) or by its employee for installation to the house of the consumer. Since, in the instant case, the explosion had not occurred during the course of installation of cylinder at the registered address of the customer, no liability would be fastened against OP No.3.
7.                Secondly, we would be like to adjudicate upon the liability of OP No.2. As far as the liability of the OP No.2 is concerned, the complaint contains no allegations of negligence against it regarding the alleged accident. This is not a case of the complainant that there was any shortcoming in the installation of the cylinder in its premises by the mechanic of OP No.2. Moreover, this is not a case where OP No.1 has placed fault on OP No.2 for the defect in the cylinder occurred on account of some mishandling on the part of the distributor before it was supplied to the consumer. Moreover, this is not a case of the complainant that the mechanic of the distributor had given false report (Annexure C-4) about the proper functioning of Gas items since the complainant was effectively using the items for at least one year and four months since the said report. Hence, in the light of present circumstances, no fault could be fastened to OP No.2.
8.                Lastly, we would be like to ponder upon the liability of OP No.1. The complainant failed to brought on record as to what was the cylinder number, from where the gas was leaking; on which date it was delivered; when the complaint, if any, for leaking of gas was lodged; since when the cylinder was leaking. In the absence of these details, it is difficult to ascertain the time since when the alleged defect was established in the cylinder after its supply by OP No.1 (as an LPG cylinder is certified to be fit for use for a period of 10 years in the first instance after its manufacture) which makes it difficult to establish the fault of OP No.1 in duly rendering services. Also, there was no mention in the complaint that the articles including LPG cylinder, regulator etc. were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for examination after the blast. Also, the detailed investigation report from police, CFSL or other agency has not been put forth on record even at this fag end of proceedings by the complainant which could provide expert opinion about the possible reasons for such blast and could test the veracity of complainant’ version. Hence, the absence of the aforesaid necessary details in question render it impossible at this stage to conclusively prove complainant’ version.
9.                In our considered opinion, based on the counter arguments by both sides, there can be either of two possibilities. The first possibility is that the allegation by OP Nos.1 and 2 that the aforesaid blast was in fact had taken place from the cylinder of tenant and not from that of complainant is true and in that scenario the present complaint would fall to its tragic end automatically. The remaining possibility is that the matter stated in affidavits of the tenant and Shri Nek Chand that the blast had in fact occurred from complainant’ cylinder is taken to be true and even in such case, in the absence of necessary details about the LPG cylinder and detailed Investigation Report by police or other expert agency, it could be said that there is lack of evidence against OPs. It is noteworthy to mention here that attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591]. Hence, these tendered affidavits being undated are not worth taking on record and are thus nothing more than a piece of waste paper. Since the proceedings before this Forum are of Summary nature, it is incumbent upon the complainant to bring all necessary facts and documents on record, before the closure of his evidence, to justify his case.
10.                For the reasons stated above, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 20.03.2018

 Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA  GUPTA                            D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                       Sd/-

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER