Punjab

Sangrur

CC/111/2015

Nazir Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Petroleum - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Kumar Walia

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                                Complaint No.  111   

                                                                 Instituted on:    10.03.2015

                                                                 Decided on:       22.03.2016

 

Nazir Khan aged about 60 years son of Ronak Khan, resident of H.No.111, VPO Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

 

                                        Versus

 

1.     Lalru LPG Territory office, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Village Alamgir, Post Office Tiwana, Via Lalru, Tehsil Derrabassi, District SAS Nagar through its authorised signatory.

2.     Charan Gas Service, Boran Gate, Nabha, District Patiala through its Manager/authorised signatory.

3.     District Food and Supplies Controller, Administrative Complex, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur.

4.     National Insurance Company, Cinema Road, Nabha, District Patiala vide policy No.401407/48/14/2000000024 (Insurance company of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and LPG Gas Supplier).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Jagtar Singh, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate.

For OP No.2.            :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.

For OP No.3             :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate

For OP No.4             :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Nazir Khan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is in the possession of a residential house measuring about 75 square yards at VPO Amargarh, where he was residing with his family members.  It is further averred that the complainant is holder of a gas connection number 16592 and the supply of LPG filled cylinder is given by OP number 1 through OP number 2, whereas the LPG supply is controlled by OP number 3.  The case of the complainant is that on 20.5.2014, when the wife of the complainant Smt. Salma was attaching/connecting the new gas cylinder and when she opened the seal of new LPG cylinder, the gas  burst out speedily from the cylinder and suddenly the gas caught fire due to which the entire house of the complainant was burnt and all the things like clothes, valuable belongings of the complainant, utensils, refrigerator, fan electric fittings etc, but the complainant and his wife were saved. Thereafter the complainant informed the police as well as fire brigade.  The fire was extinguished by the officials of fire brigade, of which DDR number 35 dated 20.5.2014 was also recorded in P.S. Amargarh.  It is stated further that the complainant suffered loss due to the manufacturing defect in the cylinder and the complainant further got prepared an estimate from Maur Architects, Sangrur for reconstruction of his damaged house, who estimated to the tune of Rs.11,19,000/- for the same.  The complainant approached the Ops for making the loss good, but nothing happened despite serving of legal notice dated 21.11.2014 upon the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed to make the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for loss along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  It is stated further that as per the case, the complainant has alleged the accident occurred due to leakage of gas from cylinder number 87610 supplied on 18.4.2014, but the cylinder involved in the accident was bearing number 12912 which was never provided by the OP number 2 to the complainant and as per the blue book last two refills supplied were bearing numbers as 7674 and 87610 and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  It is stated further that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case and as such it is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of connection number 16592. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is further stated that the complaint is filed only to grab the money from the OPs.  It is further stated that the accident as alleged occurred while installing cylinder number 12912 which was never provided by the OP number 2 to the complainant.  It is stated that DDR number 35 dated 20.5.2014 was registered.  However, the remaining allegations of the complainant have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the gas cylinder reported to have caught fire was not issued or delivered by OP number 2 to the complainant. It is further stated that OP number 2 on 18.4.2014 delivered a gas cylinder to the complainant having serial number 87610 whereas the cylinder which has been reported to be leaked was having serial number 12912, as such, it is stated that the OP number 2 has no liability. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a holder of gas connection number 16592 from OP number 2.  The other allegations levelled in the reply have been denied in toto.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and that there is no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of pass book, Ex.C-5 copy of ID card, Ex.C-6 copy of site plan, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-20 photographs, Ex.C-21 copy of newspaper clipping, Ex.C-22 copy of DDR, Ex.C-23 estimate of loss, Ex.C-24 copy of legal notice, Ex.Op-25 to Ex.C-28 receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of inquiry report dated 24.7.2014, Ex.OP1/3 copy of agreement, Ex.OP1/4 copy of inquiry report conducted by police, Ex.Op1/5 copy of report dated 27.5.2014, Ex.OP1/6 copy of agreement, Ex.Op1/7 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 and Ex.Op2/2 affidavits, Ex.Op2/3 copy of delivery voucher, Ex.OP2/4 copy of letter dated 31.3.2012, Ex.OP2/5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.Op2/6 copy of delivery voucher and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit, Ex.Op3/2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.Op3/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 2 by obtaining a gas connection bearing number 16592 for supply of LPG gas cylinders, which are being supplied to OP number 2 by OP number 1.

 

8.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 20.5.2014 when his wife Salma at about 8.00 PM was attaching/connecting the new filled LPG cylinder to the gas stove, the gas burst out speedily from the cylinder and suddenly the gas caught fire due to which all the valuables lying in the house were burnt to ashes and by this way the complainant has suffered a loss of about Rs.10.00 Lacs  and for claiming the said amount, he has filed the present complaint.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended that the complainant has alleged occurrence of accident due to leakage of gas from cylinder number 87610 supplied on 18.4.2010, but the cylinder involved in the accident was bearing number 12912, which was never supplied to the complainant by OP number 2. The same is the stand of OP number 2 in their written statement.  Ex.OP-1/1 is the affidavit of one Promila Singh, Deputy Manager, Sales, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, wherein it has been stated the cylinder which had leaked was bearing number 12912, whereas the OP number 2 supplied the cylinder to the complainant on 18.4.2014 was bearing number 87610.  To support this contention, Ex.Op2/1 is the affidavit of Shri Satwinder Singh son of Charan Dass, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that cylinder number 12912 was not supplied to the complainant and again Ex.Op2/2 is the affidavit of one Amrik Singh, employee of the OP number 2 stating that on 18.4.2014, he delivered the filled gas cylinder bearing number 87610 to the complainant after checking seal and valve of the gas cylinder. As such, we feel that cylinder bearing number 12912 was never supplied to the complainant by the OP number 2 nor there is any such entry in the blue book that cylinder bearing number 12912 was ever supplied to the complainant.  Further the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that cylinder number 12912 was supplied to him  by OP number 2. Ex.OP1/4 is the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amargarh, wherein it has been stated that the complainant will file a case before the court to get compensation, as such, they filed the application of the complainant.  We have also perused the copy of enquiry report Ex.Op1/2 submitted by the Food and Supplies Office, Nabha, wherein it has been stated that a complaint was received from Smt. Salma Devi wife of Nazir Khan, wherein it has been stated that when she was replacing the cylinder on 20.5.2014, then suddenly the gas started leaking and due to which her house caught the fire and all the valuable burnt to ashes and thereafter the fire brigade was called to control the fire.  Further perusal of the report clearly reveals that the gas cylinder bearing number 12912 was never supplied to the complainant by OP number 2 and as such it cannot be said that cylinder number 12912 was ever supplied to the complainant by OP number 2.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that cylinder number 12912 in dispute was never supplied to the complainant by OP number 2. 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 22, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member