Date of Filing      : 22.10.2020

                                                                                                                                       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.37/2022

THIS FRIDAY, THE 08^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

1.Mr.J.Purushothama Naidu,

   S/o.Late Rama Naidu,

2.Mr.J.Eswaraiyya,

    S/o.Late Rama Naidu,

Residing at Ramalingapuram Village & Post,

Uthukottai Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                              ……Complainants. 

                                                                                 //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 Complainants, 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 complainants 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 complainants for the damage caused to them 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 complainants 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 belonging to one Mrs.R.Parvathy from the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party the present complaint was filed.

3. On 30.08.2017 at about 12.30am the LPG cylinder belonging to one Mrs.R.Parvathy exploded with enormous sound the complainants and their family members who were all in sleeping 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 complainants 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 complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the complaint was 30.08.2017. The Consumer Complaint filed by Mr.J.Purushothama Naidu and J.Eswarraiyya claiming to be the neighbours of one Mrs.R.Parvathi, the customer of the 1^st opposite party were not consumers.  For the purpose of its business 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 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 and the same shall 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. Cylinders were manufactured by BIS approved manufactures under the supervision of the oil companies.  Each cylinder was subjected to pressure test and treatments as per BIS norms.  It was fitted with a high precision self-closing valve.  Pressure regulator was fitted on the valve and it has got a spindle which was operated by ON/OFF knob which depresses/releases the pin of the valve.  When the pressure regulator was put on OFF position, the valve closes automatically and stops the flow of LPG.  Both the cylinder and regulator were manufactured strictly as per the BIS specifications and given to customers for use. The cylinders were filled at atomized Bottling Plants with 14.2kg of LPG and subjected to rigorous quality control checks.  Prior to filling the cylinder was subjected to visual inspections and segregated if not found fit for filling.  After filling the cylinder goes through a series of quality control checks like weight, leakage, sensitivity of “o” ring etc., and rejected cylinders were segregated and necessary repairs/replacements were carried out.  Those cylinders which have passed through these quality control checks and found OK were fixed with safety caps and sealed for further delivery to the distributors. 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 Insurance Company appoints their Surveyor to assess the loss.  After the receipt of the information about the accident the matter was investigated by the concerned officials of the 1^st opposite party.  During the investigation it was observed that the consumer/Mrs. R. Parvathy 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 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 consumer in storing the LPG cylinder at a dangerous place and not following the safety precautions. The consumer 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 sources 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 consumer.  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 was filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by one Mr.Purushothama Naidu and J.Eswaraiyya  but in the complaint it was stated that one R.Paravathy was a customer of the 1^st opposite party and further stated that the complainants were neighbours of the said parvathy. Thus the complaint filed by the neighbors of the customer will not confer any right to file consumer complaint for the alleged damage as mentioned in the complaint. The dispute involved in the complaint was not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and was exclusively triable by a Civil Court and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone. The 2^nd opposite party was not carrying on the business with the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Case involves complicated question of facts which could not be decided by this Commission in a summary procedure. Complainants 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 present petition was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the complaint was mentioned as 30.08.2017.  The relationship between PBCL and 1^st opposite party being M/s. TDCCWA Bharat Gas Agency 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.  No cause of action for filing the instant complaint and the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary and proper party and liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that each customer on the date of enrolment with the distributor, the distributor on the date of enrolment will issue 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. Therefore presuming though not admitted if any liability was fixed against the 2^nd opposite party the same shall be liable to be discharged by insurance company and as such claim may be directly recovered from Insurance Company. 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 and multi-layered stringent quality measures were undertaken. The refills which satisfy all the quality requirements were dispatched to the distributors. It is hereby reiterated that the cylinder alleged to have damaged was supplied on 03.08.2017 and the same was kept in the hall till the date of incident that is on 30.08.2017, for 27 days. Smt.R.Parvathy did not observe any defect with the cylinder and not complained any defect.  It clearly shows there was no defect with the cylinder and the possible cause of incident could not be attributed to the supply of defective cylinder by the opposite parties. The complainant has failed to prove and establish that there was deficiency in service, failed to file any Surveyor Report or Authorities Report. It clearly shows that there is 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 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 complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by one Mr.Purushothama Naidu and J.Eswaraiyya  but in the complaint it was stated that one R.Paravathy was a customer of the 1^st opposite party and further stated that the complainants were neighbors of the said Parvathy. Thus the complaint filed by the neighbors of the customer will not confer any right to file consumer complaint for the alleged damage as mentioned in the complaint. 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. Complaint was not maintainable as detailed oral and documentary evidence was required to adjudicate the dispute and could not be decided on summary basis before the Commission. The complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the instant complaint was mentioned as 30.08.2017. No privity of contract between the complainant and the consumer, no ‘deficiency’ as defined under section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 arises. Complainant’s case was bad for non-joinder of parties such as the insurer of the 2^nd opposite party M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited with whom the 2^nd opposite party has taken LPG policy bearing No.4008/130680523/00/000 for the period from 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018. 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. Claims were settled based upon the merit of each case.  The concerned Insurance Company takes decision regarding settlement of the claim as per the provisions of Insurance Policies. In case of property damage at customers’ registered premises, the claim was to be intimated to the insurer immediately and Insurance Company appoints their Surveyor to assess the loss.  In the subject 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. The LPG cylinder connected in the kitchen was found intact and no damage to the same was observed by the investigation team.  The cylinder supplied on 03.08.2017 was found to been kept in the left corner of the hall was not connected to any of the kitchen appliances.  There was a high possibility that explosion of the LPG cylinder might be due to the external heat sources such as electric shortcut etc. the opposite parties could not be held liable for the negligence of the complainant’s neighbour i.e., third party in storing the LPG cylinder at a dangerous place and not following the safety precautions amounting to willful negligence. Mere lodging of FIR with the Police alone will not confer any right to file the consumer complaint.  It was denied that it would cost Rs.30,00,000/-to restore the building to make it into living condition.  There was no consumer – service provider agreement between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  the special conditions No.2 reads as “it is hereby warranted that the liquefied petroleum gas supplied to the insured’s customer are in sound and merchantable conditions and are properly sealed and the valves are free from all defects and device. Any claim under the policy of insurance issued by the insurer/the opposite parties is strictly subject to policy terms and conditions forming part of the policy which is binding on the complainant.  If at all the liability was fastened on the 3^rd opposite party, the other insurer of 2^nd opposite party shall pay compensate the loss and balance if any the 3^rd opposite party shall bear subject to the maximum admissible liability as per general conditions enclosed supra. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

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. Complainants does not come under definition of ‘Consumer’ as per section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The opposite party could not held liable for the negligence of the consumer storing the LPG at a dangerous place and not following the safety precautions amounting to willful negligence. As per the policy schedule Column No.7 details of Insurance Section II personal accident cover to the customers and property damage at authorized customer’s registered premises therefore this opposite party was not liable at any cost as the said complainant was not a registered user of the LPG cylinder.

8. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were submitted.  On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents were 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 was submitted. On the side of 3^rd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B9 to B11 were submitted on their side.

9. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainants are consumers under the definition of “Consumer” in Consumer Protection Act 2019 and whether the complaint as filed could be entertained before this Commission?
2. If so whether the act of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties in not providing any compensation or relief to them for the damages caused due to blast of the LPG cylinder on 30.08.2017 has been successfully proved by them by admissible evidence?
3. 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. Aadhar card of the 1^st Complainant was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Aadhar card of the 2^nd complainant was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Gas connection Book of Mrs.Parvathy was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Invoice for the Gas Cylinder dated 02.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Complaint lodged before the Inspector of Police, Pennallurpetti dated 30.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
6.  Letter issued by the District Fire Officer, Thiruvallur dated 07.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Statement by the VAO, Pennallurpetti dated 30.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Copy of FIR dated 31.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Xerox copy of Photographs were was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Estimation for the reconstruction of the building issued by Licensed Surveyor was marked as Ex.A10;
11. Legal notice issued dated 18.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A11;

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

• Copy of distributorship agreement was marked as Ex.B1;
• Copy of Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG was marked as Ex.B2;
• Copy of Report was marked as Ex.B3;
• 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;

16. The Oriental Insurance Company Policy copy was marked as Ex.B5;
17. Copy of the investigation Report dated 20.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B6;
18. 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 document was filed in proof of their defence;

19. Policy Terms and Conditions was marked as Ex.B8;

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.B9;
21. LPG Dealers Package schedule policy No.411200/48/2023/441 was marked as Ex.B10;
22. Multi-peril policy for LPG Dealers – Terms and conditions was marked as Ex.A11;

10.  Heard both Counsels. 

11. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants argued that the LPG cylinder supplied to one Parvathy by the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party was 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.

12. 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 to one Parvathy was kept idle in the hall and the same got exploded only due to external factors. His primary arguments was that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants were not their consumers. Further, for nearly 27 days from the date of supply no complaint was made by the said Parvathy.  It was also argued that they are only the agents 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.

13. On the part of the 2^nd opposite party it was argued that the dispute involves complicated 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 complainants and the 2^nd opposite party, thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

14. 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 consumer/Parvathy’s jurisdiction.  Thus alleging that the complaint is not maintainable as filed belatedly was hit by limitation and that as no warehouse was made a party he sought for the present complaint to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.

15. 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 the consumer/Parvathy was not following safety precautions amounting to willful negligence. Mere lodging of FIR and V.A.O. certificate alone will not confer any right for the complainants.  Thus stating that the complainants are not the consumers as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

16. We carefully perused the pleadings and evidences submitted by both the parties.  The factum of one Parvathy having LPG Cylinder connection No.10544 was not disputed by either parties.  However, the maintainability of complaint by the complainants and 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.A9).  Though it was the case of the complainant that the house was in occupation by the two close relatives, the present complaint was filed by the complainants who are neighbours residing along with the consumer/Parvathy. The certificate issued by V.A.O. (Ex.A7) supports the version of the complainants 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.A6) also supports the version of the complainants about the fire accident.  The FIR issued by Pennallurpet Police confirms it was only an accidental fire vide Ex.A8.  The estimate for reconstruction of the ground and first floor of the building for a sum of Rs.20,32,000/- was marked as Ex.A10.  The photographs showing the damaged cylinder and the house hold articles, walls, doors and windows were marked as Ex.A9. 

17.  It is the case of the 4^th opposite party the Insurance company that they had already paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the consumer/Parvathy through NEFT.  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 the complainants are neighbours for the consumer one Parvathy in whose name the LPG connection was obtained.  In such circumstances a question arises as to whether the complainants who are not consumers to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties could file the complaint.  It is fairly submitted by the counsel for complainants that no LPG connection was present in the name of complainants and they were residing along with one Parvathy in whose name the LPG connection was obtained.  In such facts and circumstances whether complainants could be brought under the definition of ‘Consumer’ is a disputable question.  They also could not be considered as ‘beneficiaries’ as though they are said to reside along with the said Parvathy, they did not utilize the LPG connection obtained in her name.  Further it is not clearly stated that how complainants could claim compensation from opposite parties for the blast of cylinder and consequent damages.  Thus when the factum of complainants coming under the definition of ‘Consumer’ was not established, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  If the complainants are aggrieved they have to approach the appropriate forum by producing sufficient evidence for the damages caused due to the alleged blast. This point is answered accordingly holding that the complaint is not maintainable.

Point No.2:-

18. As we have held above that the complaint is not maintainable we do not dwelve into deciding the merits of the complaint.  If the complainants wish they can proceed before the appropriate Forum for redressing their grievances. 

Point No.3:-

19. As the complaint is not maintainable the complainants are not entitled to any reliefs from the opposite parties.

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