Date of Filing      : 20.10.2020

                                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal : 08.09.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, Ph.D (Law)                                          .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc.,BL.,                                                                               …..MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),BL.,                                                        ......MEMBER-II

CC. No.36/2022

THIS FRIDAY, THE 08^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

Mrs.R.Parvathy,

Residing at Ramalingapuram Village & Post,

Uthukottai Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                              ……Complainant. 

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.The Proprietor,

   GT Bharat Gas Agency (TDCCWS Shorage),

   No.88/3, Nehru Bazaar,

   Uthukottai Town & Taluk,

   Thiruvallur District.

2.Bharat Gas,

   LPG Business unit, BPCL,

   No.1, Ranganathan Gardens,

   11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

   Chennai 600 040.

3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   No.155/4, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,

   Thiruvallur Town & District 602 001.

4.M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited,

    ICICI Lombard House,

   414, Veer Savarkar Marg.,

   Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

    Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.                                                   …..Opposite parties

Counsel for the complainant                            :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                   :   M/s.R.Anandhakumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                  :   Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                   :   Mr.C.Mahendran, Advocate.

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party                   :   Mrs.A.Latha Maheswari, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.09.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the Complainant, M/s.R.Anandhakumar,counsel for the 1^st opposite party, Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, counsel for the 2^nd opposite party,  Mr.C.Mahendran, counsel for the 3^rd opposite party and Mrs.A.Latha Maheswari, counsel for the 4^th opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both the parties this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not providing any compensation or relief to the complainant for the damage caused to her due to blast of LPG cylinder along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Being aggrieved by the damage caused by the blast of the LPG cylinder purchased from the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party the present complaint was filed.

3. The complainant having consumer No.10544 was the customer of the 1^st opposite party from the year 2010.  While so, on 30.08.2017 at about 12.30am the LPG cylinder exploded with enormous sound and the complainant and her family members who were all in sleep in the adjacent building got shocked to see that the entire room got burnt and damage.  Immediately a Police Complaint was registered.  The entire building was damaged and became unfit for dwelling due to explosion.  Though the opposite parties were approached for compensation they did not respond due to which the complainant and her family members were put to untold mental agony and hardship.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

4. The 1^st opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the 1^st opposite party had entered into “Bharat Gas Distributorship” Agreement with the 2^nd opposite party and was engaged as a distributor for sale of Corporation’s Liquefied Petroleum Gas in cylinders only for household consumers and commercial consumers and they run the distributorship in the name and style of M/s.TDCCW Bharat Gas Agency.  As per the agreement clause 18(a) warranty clause manufacturing and filling of the cylinders were all done by the 2^nd opposite party and they supply readymade cylinders for the use of household and the commercial consumers distributed through the 1^st opposite party and hence the 1^st opposite party acts as an agent of the 2^nd opposite party. The present complaint was barred by limitation as provided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The 1^st opposite party has taken insurance policy covering the accident of third party risk from 3^rd opposite party under policy No.411200/48/2023/441 for a period of 17.05.2022 to midnight of 16.05.2023. If the claim under present complaint was covered, the same shall be liable to be discharged by insurance company. Thus if any liability was assumed to be fixed on 1^st opposite party the same has to be indemnified by the insurance company. It was submitted that an LPG connection was issued to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party vide subscription voucher 611805019 dated 25.09.2010.  The complainant had taken LPG cylinder refilled on 03.08.2017 and the impugned accident happened on 30.08.2017 that is 27 days after the supply of cylinder. After the receipt of the information the matter was investigated by the concerned officials of the 1^st opposite party.  During the investigation it was observed that complainant was using the cylinder refilled which was supplied on 26.06.2017 and the same was connected to her kitchen appliance.  This cylinder connected in the kitchen was found intact and no damage caused to the same.  The cylinder supplied on 03.08.2017 was found to have been kept in the left corner of the hall.  It was pertinent to note that the cylinder alleged to have been exploded was not connected to any of the kitchen appliances and was kept in the hall in an unconnected state. There was a high possibility that explosion of the LPG cylinder might be due to the external heat sources such as electric shortcut etc, for which the opposite parties could not be held liable for the negligence of the complainant in storing the LPG cylinder at a dangerous place and not following the safety precautions. It was further submitted that the complainant did not report any leakage or defect in the cylinder from the date of supply on 03.08.2017 till date of accident to the opposite parties. Thus it could be inferred that the cylinder was damaged due to the external heat source like electric shortcut and it was denied that the cylinder exploded because of the improper and careless refilling or packing of the cylinder and also denied that the opposite parties was liable to pay any compensation for the willful negligence of the complainant. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed against them as there was no defect with the cylinder and the possible cause of accident could not be attributed to the supply of defective cylinder by the opposite parties.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 2^nd opposite party:-

5. The 2^nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complaint filed against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the 2^nd opposite party was not carrying on the business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. In the instant complaint it was nowhere stated that permission under section 34(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act was granted. Case involves complicated question of facts which could not be decided by this Commission in a summary procedure. If at all they have any grievances they ought to have approached only the Civil Courts and not this Commission for relief if any. The issue as to maintainability may be tried as a preliminary issue.  The present petition was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the complaint was 30.08.2017. The relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party was on Principal to Principal basis and that the 1^st opposite party does not act as an agent or on account of the 2^nd opposite party. Hence, each party was responsible for their own act and therefore the 2^nd opposite party could not be impleaded or made liable even if any deficiency in service or defect in goods was established. It was submitted that each customer on the date of enrolment with the distributor will issue a subscription voucher.  In the subscription voucher it was stated that the 1^st opposite party alone was responsible, if any, for any claim arising there form and 2^nd opposite party could not be made liable for the same.  Again reference may be made to clause 11 of the subscription voucher which clearly states that the company shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to any person or property as a result of the installation or use of the gas by the consumer.  In the event of any accident involving the consumer’s installation, he shall forthwith inform the Distributor. The responsibility of the 2^nd opposite party comes to an end as soon as the cylinders were delivered at the premises of distributors i.e. 1^st opposite party and from then onwards, distributor was liable and has to take all the care and caution. The 2^nd opposite party has taken insurance policy covering the accident of third party risk from insurance company M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited under policy No.4008/130680523/00/000 for the period from 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018 and the claim under present complaint was covered under the policy. The 2^nd opposite party takes sufficient precautions before the cylinders were supplied to its customers and further states that in the process of filling and supplying gas refills to customers, extreme care has been taken about the quality. Every customer using LPG gas was provided information and guidelines through ipgnext.in portal built for consumers and common people for, inter alia, the purpose of claiming compensation in the event of any accidental death/injury or loss of property due to manufacturing defects or defects in LPG cylinder. In case of any accident involving consumer’s installation he/she has to forthwith approach the supplying distributor.  Whenever an accident was reported, the concerned Area Office investigates the cause of accident and if the accident was an LPG accident, the local office of the insurance company was notified by the concerned distributor/Area Office and subsequently lodges claim with the concerned Insurance Company.  Customers were not required to apply to Insurance Company or to contact them directly. In case of property damage at customers’ registered premises the Insurance Company appoints their Surveyor to assess the loss.  Claims were settled based upon the merits of each case.  The concerned Insurance Company takes decision regarding settlement of the claim as per the provisions of Insurance Policies. It was submitted that an LPG connection was issued to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party vide subscription voucher 611805019 dated 25.09.2010.  The complainant had taken LPG cylinder refill on 03.08.2017 and the impugned accident happened on 30.08.2017 that is 27 days after the supply of cylinder. After the receipt of the information the matter was investigated by the concerned officials of the 1^st opposite party.  During the investigation it was observed that complainant was using the refill which was supplied on 26.06.2017 and the same was connected to her kitchen appliance.  The cylinder connected in the kitchen was found intact.  The cylinder supplied on 03.08.2017 was found to have been kept in the left corner of the hall.  It was pertinent to note that the cylinder alleged to have been exploded was not connected to any of the kitchen appliances and was kept in hall in unconnected state. There was a high possibility that explosion of the LPG cylinder might be due to the external heat sources such as electric shortcut etc., for which the opposite parties could not be held liable for the negligence of the complainant in storing the LPG cylinder at a dangerous place and not following the safety precautions. It was denied that the cylinder exploded because of the improper and careless refilling or packing of the cylinder and also denied that the opposite parties was liable to pay any compensation for the willful negligence of the complainant and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed against them.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 3^rd opposite party:-

6. The 3^rd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the address of the insured as per the policy was Thiruvallur District Coop Warehouse Storage, No. 155/4, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Thiruvallur Town & District, 602001, whereas in the complaint the 1^st opposite party address given as, The Proprietor, GT Bharat Gas Agency (TDCCWS Storage), No. 88/3, Nehru Bazaar, Uthukottai Town & Taluk, Thiruvallur District. It means that the policyholder/insured and the 1^st opposite were different and hence the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is not sustainable and the complaint is to be dismissed limine. The complaint was not maintainable as detailed oral and documentary evidence was required and could not be decided on summary basis before the Commission. The complaint was barred by limitation and also complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The claim procedure provides for actions to be followed, viz., whenever an accident was reported, the concerned Area Office investigates the cause of accident and if the accident was LPG accident, the local office of the Insurance Company was notified by the concerned distributor / Area Office and subsequently lodges claim with the concerned Insurance Company. In case of property damage at customers' registered premises, the claim is to be intimated to the insurer immediately and Insurance Company appoints their Surveyor to assess the loss. But in the present case there was no intimation to the 3^rd opposite party and no opportunity was given to assess the loss. The 3^rd opposite party came to know about the claim only after impleading as 3^rd opposite party.  It was denied that the cylinder exploded because of the improper and careless refilling or packing of the cylinder and it was liable to pay any compensation for the willful negligence of the complainant. Mere lodging of FIR with the Police alone will not confer any right to file the consumer complaint. It is hereby reiterated that the cylinder alleged to have damaged was supplied on 3.8.2017 and the same was kept in the hall till the date of incident 30.8.2017, for 27 days the complainant did not observe any defect with the cylinder and neither had she complained any defect. It clearly shows there was no defect with the cylinder and the possible cause of incident cannot be attributed to the supply of defective cylinder by the opposite parties. Mere lodging of FIR with the Police alone will not confer any right to file the instant consumer complaint and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 4^th opposite party:-

7. The 4^th opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the complaint made against the opposite parties was barred by limitation.  The alleged fire loss happened on 30.08.2017 but the complaint was filed in 2022.  Since it was not filed within two years from the date of cause of action as per section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, on that ground the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The 2^nd opposite party along with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai-51 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Mumbai-1has taken insurance policy covering the accident of third party risk from the 4^th opposite party under policy No.4008/130680523/00/000 for the period from 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018. It was further stated that the opposite party could not be held liable for the negligence of the complainant storing the LPG cylinder at a dangerous place and not following safety precautions which amounts to willful negligence. It was denied that the cylinder exploded, because of the improper and careless refilling or packing of the cylinder.  Mere lodging of FIR and VAO certificate alone will not confer any right to file the complaint. As per the policy the 4^th opposite party had paid Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of property damages to the bank account No.22205020107 Bank IFSC code SCBL0036001 on 09.06.2021 through NEFT and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed against them.

8. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were submitted.  On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. On the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 were submitted.  On the side of 4^th opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B8 to Ex.B10. On the side of 3^rd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B11 to B13 were submitted on their side.

9. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the act of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties in not providing any compensation or relief to the complainant for the damages caused to her due to the blast of LPG cylinder on 30.08.2017 in her house has been successfully proved by the complaint by admissible evidence?
2. If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

1. Complainant’s gas connection book was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Invoice for the gas cylinder dated 02.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Complaint lodged by the complainant’s husband before the Inspector of Police, Pennallurpetti dated 30.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Letter issued by the District Fire Officer, Thiruvallur to the complainant’s husband dated 07.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Statement by the VAO, Pennallurpetti dated 30.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Copy of FIR dated 31.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Photographs were was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 18.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Estimation for the reconstruction of the building issued by Licensed Surveyor was marked as Ex.A9;

On the side of 2^nd opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

10. Copy of distributorship agreement was marked as Ex.B1;
11. Copy of Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG was marked as Ex.B2;
12. Copy of Report was marked as Ex.B3;
13. LPG Accident Report dated 20.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B4;

On the side of 1^st opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

• The Oriental Insurance Company Policy copy was marked as Ex.B5;
• Copy of the investigation Report dated 20.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B6;
• Copy of notification for “Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG for the customers was marked as Ex.B7;

On the side of 4^th opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

17. Investigation Report was marked as Ex.B8;
18. Policy Terms and Conditions was marked as Ex.B9;
19. NEFT payment details was marked as Ex.B10;

On the side of 3^rd opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

20. LPG Dealers package schedule policy No.411200/48/2018/517 was marked as Ex.B11;
21. LPG Dealers Package schedule policy No.411200/48/2023/441 was marked as Ex.B12;
22. Multi-peril policy for LPG Dealers – Terms and conditions was marked as Ex.A13;

10.  Heard both Counsels.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the LPG cylinder supplied to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party has been continuously leaking which resulted in blast on 30.08.2017.  Due to the blast, the entire house including the walls, ceiling and furnitures got badly damaged.  Though the opposite parties approached appropriately no relief was forthcoming from them.  Hence he prayed for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

11. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party that the LPG cylinder refilled and supplied on 26.06.2017 was only connected to the kitchen appliances and the cylinder supplied on 03.08.2017 was kept idle in the hall and the same got exploded only due to external factors. Further, nearly for 27 days from the date of supply no complaint was made by the complainant.  It was also argued that they are only the agent of the 2^nd opposite party and the entire manufacturing and refill was done by the 2^nd opposite party and hence they were no way responsible. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed against them.

12. On the part of the 2^nd opposite party it was argued that the dispute averments contains mixed question of facts which has to be dismissed in limine.  It was contended that the complaint was barred by limitation.  Further the relationship between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was only Principal to Principal basis and they have no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

13. The 3^rd opposite party who is the insurer for the 1^st opposite party Dealer alleges that the policy was taken and issued only to warehouse at Thiruvallur and not at Uthukottai and hence there was no coverage for the complainant’s jurisdiction.  Thus alleging that the complaint was filed belatedly and was hit by limitation and also that when no warehouse was made a party to the complaint, it has to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.

14. The 4^th opposite party filed written arguments with an endorsement that the same may be treated as oral arguments.  In the written arguments it was submitted that the 2^nd opposite party along with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai-51 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited- Mumbai-1 has taken insurance policy covering the accident of third party risk from the 4^th opposite party under policy No.4008/130680523/00/000 for the period from 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018.  Further it was stated that they could not be held liable as the LPG cylinder was kept at a dangerous place and for not following the safety precautions amounting to willful negligence on the part of complainant. Mere lodging of FIR and V.A.O. certificate alone will not confer any right for compensation to the complainant.  As per the policy, the 4^th opposite party had paid Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of property damages which was credited to Bank account No.22205020107, Bank IFSC Code.SCBL0036001 on 09.06.2021 through NEFT. Thus stating that the complainant is not entitled for any extra compensation apart from the said Rs.2,00,000/- they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

15. We carefully perused the pleadings and evidences submitted by both the parties.  The factum of the complainant having LPG Cylinder connection No.10544 was not disputed by either parties.  However, the cause for the blast of cylinder has been seriously disputed by the opposite parties.  It was not disputed that the cylinder was purchased 27 days before the blast/accident.  The damage caused to the cylinder was also evident vide photographs (Ex.A7).  Though it was the case of the complainant that the house was in occupation by two close relatives, the present complaint was filed by the complainant who was the wife of one of the occupant. The certificate issued by V.A.O. (Ex.A5) supports the version of the complainant that on 30.08.2017 at 12.30am due to leakage of gas from the cylinder, the cylinder got ignited and started burning due to which the house hold articles along with walls, doors and windows got damaged.  The joint complaint given by the occupants of the building to the Police Station intimating the fire accident caused by the blast of the cylinder was marked as Ex.A3 which proves that information about the fire accident was immediately given to the police. The Statement issued by the Fire Station dated 17.09.2017 (Ex.A4) also supports the version of the complainant about the fire accident.  The FIR issued by Pennallurpet Police confirms that it was only accidental fire vide Ex.A6.  The estimate for reconstruction of the ground and first floor of the building due to the damage caused by the fire accident for a sum of Rs.20,32,000/- was marked as Ex.A9.  The photograph showing the damaged cylinder and the house hold articles, walls, doors and windows were marked as Ex.A7.  Thus the accidental fire accident due to the blast of the cylinder was established.

Cause for the accident:-

16.  However, it is the case of the 4^th opposite party/the Insurance company that they had already paid Rs.2,00,000/- compensation to the complainant through NEFT which was not disputed by the complainant.  Vide Ex.B1 we could find the agreement entered between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party.  Vide Ex.B2 Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG was submitted wherein the provisions regarding insurance relating to the PSU Oil Marketing Companies liability found under clause 1(4) of the said policy.  The limit of liability was provided wherein for property damage a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been mentioned per event.  Under clause 2(5) it has been stated that in case of property damage at customers’ registered premises, the Insurance Company appoints their Surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case it is admitted that there was no loss or personal injury to men and there was only property loss.  While so, vide Ex.B8, the investigation report submitted by the 4^th opposite party the nature and extent of damage to the premises was found as,

“During our inspection it is reported that the house is partly affected and all the household items such as kitchen utensils and clothes were damaged.  We found only the following items

Physically verified affected items:

Few area in the house was damaged, cracks were observed various part of the walls.  Hence claimant is not staying in the house due to safety reason and planning to demolish and reconstruct the entire house.

Clothes in burnt condition

Some house hold items in damaged condition

And the remaining of the items was disposed by the consumers before our inspection.”

In the said investigation report an assessment was made and the total loss for the building and the household articles was calculated after depreciation to the tune of Rs.11,22,500/-.  However, it is mentioned that the liability as per the policy is only Rs.2,00,000/-.  Vide Ex.B10 the 4^th opposite party had paid Rs.2,00,000/- vide NEFT discharge voucher was also submitted wherein the property damage was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/-.

17. In such facts and circumstances when the cause for the cylinder blast, could not be decided as to whether it was due to any manufacturing defect on the part of the 2^nd opposite party or due to mishandling by the 1^st opposite party during transport or due to poor maintenance by the complainant herself, we could not impose or fix the liability on the part of opposite parties.  The receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- was also not disputed by the complainant. The cause for the blast could not be determined by this Commission in a summary manner with the available documents. Thus we conclude that such disputed questions fixing liability could not be decided by us and could not fix the liability on either of the opposite parties 1 &2 for payment of compensation as claimed by the complainant.

18. We find support of our conclusion from the decision rendered by The NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI IN RP.No.4867/ 2012 IN SAWITA RANI VS  M/S. JANTA GAS SERVICE dated 01.03.2021 wherein it has been held that

11.    Important issue involved in the matter is whether the Gas cylinder was defective and had leaked, which caused the fire. The District Forum had also observed that even if there was leakage in the gas cylinder, there must be some external source of ignition for fire to occur. The Complainant has not provided any evidence to substantiate her claim that the leakage was caused due to defect in the cylinder. The only document submitted by Complainant in support of her contention was the Surveyor's Report, which merely stated that "the insured has informed that due to burst of LPG cylinder in the consumer premises, fire took place as confirmed by Fire Brigade report & DDR also". The Surveyor's Report, however, does not disclose the possible reason for bursting of Gas Cylinder and whether there was any defect in the cylinder. The Fire Brigade Report also merely stated the "Supposed Cause of Fire" as "Leakage of gas cylinder". It, however, does not attribute the leakage due to any defect in the gas cylinders. There is nothing in the Surveyor's Report, the Police Report or the Fire Brigade Report to show that there was a defect in the Gas Cylinders delivered to the Complainant. In the absence of strict proof that there was a defect in the Gas Cylinders, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly observed that "It might be possible fire occurred in the house due to some other reason and because of fire cylinder burst and exaggerated the fire. Complainant totally failed to discharge her onus by any cogent believable evidence to establish that cylinder was defective and service of opposite parties deficient." The State Commission also dismissed the Appeal filed by the Complainant/Petitioner. 

The above quoted decision squarely applies for the present facts of case when the cause for cylinder blast could not be determined by this Commission and no liability could be fixed on the part of the opposite parties. Thus no deficiency in service could be imposed upon any of the opposite parties and we hold that complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  This point answered accordingly.  If the complainant wanted to establish the fault on opposite parties, she has to approach the appropriate Civil Forum with extensive evidence.

Point No.2:-

19. As we have held above that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, she is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties in this complaint.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 08^th day of September 2023.

    Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

 List of documents filed by the 4^th opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 3^rd opposite party:-

   Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT