Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/741/2018

Khandelwal Gas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dypti Chand s/o Ram Lal - Opp.Party(s)

S.N.Bohra

26 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 720 /2018

 

Deputy Chand s/o Ramlal r/o 2936 Raigaron ka Mohalla, Ghatgate, Jaipur.

Vs.

Khandelwal Gas, 2337 Ramlala Gali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 741/2018

 

Khandelwal Gas, 2337 Ramlala Gali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur

Vs.

Deputy Chand s/o Ramlal r/o 2936 Raigaron ka Mohalla, Ghatgate, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.3.2019

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

2

 

Mr. Pramod Kumar counsel for the complainant consumer

Mr. Ravindra Jain counsel for HPCL

Mr.Sanjog Gupta counsel for Khandelwal Gas

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the gas agency is that defect in the gas cylinder was cured. The appellant was not negligent hence, claim should have been dismissed and other contention of the appellant is that insurance company was necessary party.

 

Per contra the contention of the consumer is that claim has rightly been allowed but looking at the facts that four persons were suffered burn injuries and property has also been damaged, the compensation should have been enhanced.

 

The counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation has

left the matter at the discretion of the Commission.

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the gas cylinder was delivered by the appellant gas agency and it is admission of the appellant that it was defective and contention is that defect was cured by expert mechanic but no evidence to this effect has been submitted and there is no dispute about the fact that fire has burnt due to defective gas cylinder. Hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim against the gas agency.

 

The contention of the gas agency is that insurance company was necessary party but the appellant has never asked to make insurance company a party and in any case the complainant has not pleaded any defect against the insurance company. Hence, in view of the above the insurance company was not a necessary party and in absence of the insurance company the claim could have been decided and the Forum below is right in holding that due to absence of the insurance company the complaint could not be denied.

 

4

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of gas agency.

 

The contention of the complainant consumer is that for loss of property no compensation has been allowed.

 

The Forum below has rightly held that no evidence has been submitted to support that any loss to the property has been suffered by the complainant. Four persons have suffered burn injuries hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed Rs. 2 lakhs compensation to the complainant. Appropriate compensation has been allowed. There is no reason to enhance the compensation.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in both the appeals and both appeals stand dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm