Haryana

StateCommission

CC/85/2014

Pardeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indane Shaheed Shyam Singh Indane Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.85 of 2014

                                             Date of Institution:27.08.2014

          Date of Decision: 10.01.2017

 

Pardeep S/o Sh.Deen Dayal, Caste Ahir, R/o H.No.42, Village Joniyawas, V.P.O. Jatola, Police Station Farrukhnagar, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, Distt. Gurgaon.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Manager, Indane Shaheed Shyam Singh Indane Gas Agency, Shop No.11, Near Bus Stand, Farruk Nagar, Distt. Gurgaon.

2.      Indian Oil Corporation Limited through chief Area Manager, Karnal Area Office,Village Kond, Assand road, P.O. Gharunda, Distt. Karnal.

3.      Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Corporate Office, 3079/3, J.B. Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi 110049.

4.      United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager Divisional Office Nop.17, 266 Candana Building, 1^st Floor, Dr. D.N.Road, Fort Mumbai.

          Second Address

United India Insurance Company Limited, 417 Qutub Plaza, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate counsel for the complainants.

                             Mr.Gobind Dhanda, Advocate counsel for the opposite party No.1.

                             Mr.M.S.Rana, Advocate, counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

                             Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the opposite party No.4.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          The complainant has come for compensation to the tune of  Rs.40/- lacs alongwith the interest @ 12% p.a.  from the date of incident besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/-.  It is alleged that he is brother-in-law of Consumer Sunita Devi, who obtained LPG connection from opposite party (O.P.) No.2. The same was checked and inspected by dealer on 29.05.2013 and charged Rs.240/- in lieu of change of rubber tube and washers.  On 08.02.2014 gas was booked with O.P.No.2 which was delivered and installed by it’s staff.  On 20.09.2014 he, his brother and father Deen Dayal were working in the fields.  After shifting water supply they all came to the room  constructed in the fields due to excessive cold.  His father (Deen Dayal) asked Kanwal Singh to prepare tea. When he switched on gas, fire broke out in room due to leakage in gas pipe. There was blast and they all received severe burn injuries.  Initially they were taken to Samvit Healthcare from there he was referred to Aravi Hospital Hospital, Gurgaon. He was having burn below knee, face and below wrist, dorsal and palm.  During day time, when he move out sunlight effects burnt area of skin and etching starts. He applied for disability certificate on 11.06.2014, but could not be prepared as board of doctors advised him for re-examination after three months. More than Rs. Five lacs were spent on his treatment. Doctor sent ‘ruka’ (information) to the police station on the basis of which DDR NO.33 dated 21.02.2014 recorded. Fire broke out due to leakage in gas pipe, connecting cylinder to gas stove. They were informed that the consumers and their family members were covered by insurance policy obtained by oil companies, in case of untoward incident. Consumer is to inform distributor in writing immediately.  LPG distributors are also having third party liability insurance to cover the loss in case of any incident.  They also informed O.P.No.2 about this incident on 11.03.2014. There are certain guidelines vide which consumer is covered under third party insurance upto Rs.40.00 lacs for single consumer and upto Rs.50.00 lacs in case of consolidated accident claim. As per news published in newspaper Annexure P-8 dated 09.03.2014 and 31.05.2014 an aggrieved person/consumer is entitled for compensation upto Rs.40/- lacs. Claim was submitted with LPG distributor Farrukhnagar, but, same was refused to receive the said claim, so he sent claim through speed post to O.P.No.2. They be directed to give compensation as mentioned above.

2.      In reply, it is alleged by O.P.No.1 that the compensation claimed by complainants is highly inflated and exaggerated to bring this complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The complainant does not come under the definition of consumer as Sunita was having LPG connection. When Sunita Devi obtained LPG connection, she told her address as House No.136 village Joniawas, but, lateron shifted to House No.43 village Joniawas, which is mentioned in the ration card. Mandatory inspection was done on 29.05.2013.  Sunita Devi booked cylinder on 08.02.2014  which was taken by Deen Dayal from the godown on 11.02.2014 as discount of Rs.18/- is granted for taking delivery from godown. The cylinder was not installed by it’s employees at the premises of the Sunita Devi.  No incident took place due to leakage in the gas pipeline or cylinder.  He did not receive burn injuries due to leakage in gas pipe. The place, where incident took place, was never meant for installation of LPG connection because the same was granted for house and not the fields. It is having LPG dealers package policy from United India Insurance Company in case of third party liability to the tune of Rs.15/- lacs. The incident took place on 20.02.2014 whereas the information was given on 10.03.2014. Thereafter Raj Kumar Manager visited the spot alongwith photographer and it was found that gas stove regulator and cylinder were intact and in proper condition as no damage was caused to them. There were no burn marks on the roof, walls, floor etc.  No repair work was found to be done.  Had there been any incident there must have been burn marks on the surrounding area. The alleged pipe was burnt from the middle and both the ends were intact.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of M/s Pooja Appliances, Gurgaon manufacturer of Suraksha pipe,  alleged to have leaked.  It is further alleged that on 30.03.2014 Deen Dayal deposited empty cylinder intact and obtained delivery of another cylinder. It shows that cylinder was being regularly used upto 30.03.2014.  It appears that after going through newspaper, complainant concocted false story about fire incident and filed complaint for compensation. Other averments are also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.Nos.2 and 3 alleged that there is no privity of contract in between them and complainant. Distributor has acted as a principal and not their agent.  It is clear from the perusal of clause no.17 of contract entered in between them that distributor is responsible for sale, installation, distribution, repair etc. Their relationship is on principle-to-principle basis. If any incident takes place with ultimate consumer  they are not liable to pay any compensation. They have obtained policy as far as incident at the specified place and falls under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. (In short “Act”).   Other averments are also denied and it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In addition thereto O.P.No.4 has raised objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint and that it is wrongly impleaded as a party.  The complainant has intentionally, deliberately and without any justification claimed highly exaggerated compensation just to bring this complaint within pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.   It is liable to pay compensation as per LPG dealers package policy and Public liability policy for oil industry as per terms and conditions mentioned therein.  It is not liable to pay any compensation as per averments raised in the complaint.  Other averments are also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that this commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint because the complainant has requested to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40/- lacs.  The District forum is having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter having value upto Rs.20/- lacs. As per publication in newspaper Annexure P-10 an aggrieved person/consumer is entitled for compensation upto Rs.40/- lacs, so it cannot be alleged that amount of compensation is exaggerated or inflated to bring this complaint within pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.

7.      This argument is of no avail. Any news published in the newspaper is not having any statutory power. On the basis of news in any newspaper a person cannot ask for compensation.  One has to prove his claim as per the law laid down by the statute or agreement in between the parties. In the present case complainant has miserably failed to show that how he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.40/- lacs.  On the basis of news, complainant has asked for Rs.40/- lacs. It appears that the amount mentioned in complaint is highly exaggerated and inflated.  If a party has exaggerated claim by raising such pleas, it does not mean that jurisdiction will vest with State Commission. It is only hypothetical version  and this relief may or may not be granted to complainant.  It has been opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Indrani Chatterjee Vs. AMRI Hospitals in consumer complaint No.383 of 2013 decided on  07.11.2014 that if relief claimed is “un-realistic”, “exaggerated” or “excessive” consumer Fora can ask the complainant to amend the relief and file the complaint before appropriate Forum.  If complainant has unreasonably inflated claim for exemplary damages for bringing complaint with the jurisdiction of this Commission the same can be rejected.  For ready reference relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“There is no quarrel with the proposition that the question whether or not a claim made in a complaint is “unrealistic”, “exaggerated” or “excessive” is to be determined after the complainant has been given an opportunity to prove the case he has set up and establish his claim under various heads, but it has also been held that where ex-facie the claim made appears to be unusually high without any basis, as per the case set up in the complaint, a Consumer For a would be justified in declining to admit the complaint.  As regards the jurisdictional limitations of the For a below to award compensation more than what is claimed in the complaint, we feel that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court in a recent decision in Balram Prasad & Ors. Vs. Kunal Saha & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 384, the State Commission shall not be faced with any such handicap.

15.    A similar issue came up for consideration before this commission in Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors. CC No.60 of 2011. Rejecting the contention of the complainant that the complainant was free to claim the compensation as per his own assessment, keeping in view the extent of the loss and the injury suffered by him, and that the complaint could not be disposed of at a preliminary stage on the ground that the claim was exaggerated, vide order dated 08.07.2011, the complaint was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to suitably amend her complaint and file the same before an appropriate Consumer forum.  The said order has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.10.2011, in civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011.  A similar view was taken by this Commission in CC No.9 of 2010, which was dismissed on the ground that the complainant had unreasonably inflated the claim for exemplary damages for bringing the complaint with the jurisdiction of this Commission.”

8.      As per above discussion and relying on case laws cited above, this commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out from the material placed on the record.  The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing her complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission by misusing the process of law.  So, it is held that the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  Similar view was also expressed by this Commission in complaint No.C.C. No.02 of 2017 in C.C. No.26 of 2015 titled as Satyabati Panda vs. Parsvnath Developers.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Complainant should amend the relief clause suitably before filing complaint before competent fora.

 

January 10th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.