Rep. Beside Hospital,
Under Bridge Road,
4. C/o Rep. Beside Hospital,
Under Bridge Road,
…Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri V. Counsel for Opposite party Sri CAR Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite party Sri N. Anil, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite party Sri Ch. Opposite party Did not appear and has been set
ORDER
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao, I/c President.
This is a compliant filed by the complainant
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of Warangal and Opposite Party No.3 is the Branch office of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant got gas cylinder connection bearing No.8454 voucher No.1701236 on 22-08-1991 situated at On 23-05-2003 the complainant observed leakage in the cylinder though the regulator was switched off. Immediately the complainant complained to Opposite Party No.3 for which Opposite Party No.3 sent a mechanic for inspection and repair. The mechanic inspected the cylinder regulator observed the leakage. Thereafter he disconnected the regulator while the same being removed fire caught to the cylinder and thereby entire house was gutted in fire. The articles of the complainant such as clothes, colour T.V., The complainant house was leased to a tenant and he was doing watch repair and public telephone booth, etc., and his property also damaged. The complainant informed to the fire station officer and lodged complaint before S.H.O. Warangal. In all the complainant's property was damaged worth Rs.8,00,000/- The complainant was not aware about the mechanic of Opposite Party No.3 whose negligent act resulted in loss, thus notice could not given to mechanic. The complainant issued legal notice dt.14-08- to all Opposite Parties claiming damages. The Opposite Party issued reply dt.26-08-02, for which the complainant got issued rejoinder to the reply sent by Opposite Party But there was no response. As such the complainant filed the present complaint for his
As per their information, the user of the gas was an unauthorized user mishandled the connection and the regulator through which the Gas flows into the stove burners resulting the same in catching fire and without taking the safety measures by There is no contractual liability of obligation in between the consumer and the distributor as the consumer put the gas connection to unauthorized use. This Opposite Party replied for the Legal Notice and is neither individually nor jointly liable. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
Opposite Party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
In the initial stage this Opposite Party was the Distributor of Opposite Party No.1, later it was changed. Hence, all the connections of this Opposite This opposite party is not responsible for the alleged incidence. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
The Opposite Party No.3 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
It is true that Opposite Party No.1 is the Manufacturer of When the representative of complainant approached this Opposite party and informed the leakage through the regulator this O.P. sent the mechanic and the incident already took place when the mechanic went to the house of the complainant. The incident took place only on the negligence of the complainant. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
Hence, this Forum set him
The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 A-13. On behalf of Opposite Party No.3 one D.
The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?
2) To what relief?
Affidavit filed by the complainant as chief, the contents of the said Affidavit are same as mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant.
The complainant observed leakage from the Gas cylinder on 23-05-2003 and immediately after noticing the leakage he informed The said Opposite party No.3 sent a mechanic after getting the information of the leakage of the gas and the mechanic observed leakage and tried to remove the Regulator. But fire gutted the cylinder and within no time the fire spread the house. And due to fire accident took place entire house was burnt including all house hold articles. Hence, the complainant sustained heavy loss due to
Affidavit also filed by the tenant of the said complainant who was running a watch mechanic shop as a telephone booth in the said house. He also incurred heavy loss in the said fire accident and entire house including the said tenant portion.
The complainant states that an amount of Rs.8 Hence, the Opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.
Affidavits filed by Though they filed separate Affidavits the contents are same. As per their contention, they are no way concerned with the alleged fire accident took place on 23-05-2003, because Opposite party No.3 sent a mechanic immediately when the information received from the complainant of the said leakage of the gas cylinder but when the said fire accident took place and the entire house gutted with fire. So the said fire accident took place due to negligent act of the said complainant only but not the negligent act of the said Hence the opposite parties are no way concerned for the loss sustained by the complainant as alleged by the complainant in the complaint.
The complainant informed the fire station and the fire authorities came and extinguished the fire. In this
After perusing all the documents, Affidavits and heard the arguments of both the counsels, we observed that the complainant could not prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. There is no documentary evidence regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.
A mere allegation of the complainant through his complaint and Affidavit cannot attribute the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.
The fire station authorities given a certificate which is marked as Ex.B-2 in which that they stated that the said cylinder is being used by the complainant for the last (15) days. The said certificate also revealed that the fire accident already took place when the said mechanic reached the house of the The leakage when noticed the consumer has to remove the regulator and would have brought the cylinder outside. The incident had
Hence we concluded that the fire accident took place and the loss incurred by the complainant and his tenant as alleged by the complainant is due to negligent act of the said complainant only. Hence, the Opposite parties are not liable.
In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed, but without cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 31st March. 2008).
Member, I/President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal
