JAGDISH CHANDER filed a consumer case on 08 Aug 2016 against HLRDC FARM in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/623/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Oct 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.623 of 2016
Date of Institution: 29.06.2016
Date of Decision: 08.08.2016
Jagdish son of Shri Pale Ram, residence of village Mirzapur, Tehsil & District Hisar.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. Manager, HLRDC Farm, Bharat Gas Agency, Barwala, Road, Hisar Tehsil & District Hisar.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Dhansu Raod, Hisar through its Regional Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited Hisar through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Hisar Insurer of respondent No.1 vide Policy No.420301/48/10/2000000133 valid from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Hisar-Insurer of Respondent No.2 vide policy No.021000/49/10/60/00000001 valid from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present: Shri.Sikender Bakshi, Advocate counsel for appellant.
O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
It was alleged by complainant that Opposite Party/respondent delivered a cylinder to him in the month of October, 2010. As there was leakage from the same, fire broke out in the kitchen on 08.10.2010 due to which his wife was burnt to death. They be directed to pay Rs.17/- lacs as compensation.
2. Opposite Parties/respondents controverted his averments and alleged that there was no leakage from the cylinder. The cylinder was delivered on 04.10.2010 whereas incident took place on 08.10.2010. Even thereafter cylinders were issued to him and there was no complaint.
3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Hisar (in short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.05.2016.
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. As per averments of the complainant, it cannot be presumed that there was leakage in the cylinder on 08.10.2010 due to which this incident took place. The cylinder was installed on 04.10.2010 whereas incident took place on 08.10.2010. Learned District Forum rightly came to conclusion that had there been leakage, the incident should have taken place immediately and not after four days. More so, DDR was lodged from the side of the complainant just after the incident wherein brother of wife of complainant specifically stated that pipe of cylinder came out from regulator and that is why this incident took place. It clearly shows that there was no leakage and incident took place when pipe came out of regulator. The complainant did not produce cylinder before agency. There is no evidence that he gave cylinder to police. It cannot be considered as deficiency in service. The incident had taken place on 08.10.2010 and the present complaint was filed on 19.04.2011. Had there been any negligence on the part of the OPs, he must have filed the complaint there and then and it appears to be an after thought version.
7. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from every angle and has rightly come to conclusion that OPs are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.
August 8th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K.Bishnoi, Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl.Bench
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.