Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/125

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.N.Sehgal Adv.

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No: 125 of 17.02.2017.                                                             Date of Decision: 03.03.2017.

 

Karamjit Singh aged about 41 years son of Shri Balwinder Singh, resident of VPO Dolon Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Mobile No.98155-73273                                                                                     ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate office at 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110049.

IInd Address: Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Maharashtra)

2. Indane Gas Service, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Punjab State Office, Plot No.3-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh-160019 through its Manager.
3. M/s. Nirjag Gas, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 4-A, First Floor, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Partner/Prop./Director/G.M.
4. Jagdev Singh son of Balwinder Singh, resident of village Dolon Khurd, District Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant, Proprietor of Master Dairy situate at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) by claiming that OP3 having agency of OP1 and OP2. OP4, the brother of complainant after getting a cylinder booked through serial No.232781 on 25-26 October 2016 got delivery of the same from OP1 to OP3 on 27.10.2016. That LPG cylinder was kept at shop of complainant because OP4 had to go somewhere urgently. Said cylinder was permitted to be kept by OP4 at the shop of complainant on 27.10.2016. Thereafter, OP4 kept the cylinder lying at the shop of complainant, but on the midnight of 14.11.2016 at about 01.20 AM a blast occurred in the shop of the complainant, when same was locked from outside. Later on it was found that the cylinder delivered by OP1 to OP3 to OP4 had blasted. Said cylinder was not in use even. The matter reported to In charge, Police Chowki Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Substantial loss on account of defective gas cylinder alleged to have taken place and description of the loss given item wise in para no.8 of the complaint. Even the entire premises of the shop of the complainant stood damaged. Legal notice dated 23.12.2016 was served on Ops, but they failed to submit reply and thereafter, this complaint filed for getting compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- including Rs.2,72,000/- for loss and damage of the goods, but Rs.4,00,000/- on account of repair of the premises.

2.                Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that in view of the definition of consumer given in Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is a consumer because of user of the goods (cylinder) other than one who purchased it for consideration. As the cylinder due to which blast occurred was kept by OP4 at shop of complainant and as such, it is contended that complainant being user of the cylinder is a consumer. That submission of counsel for complainant certainly has no force because there is distinction of user of goods and retainer of the goods. In para no.3 and 4 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that cylinder in question delivered by OP1 to OP3 to OP4 on 27.10.2016 was permitted to be retained at the premises of complainant and thereafter, the same kept lying in the shop until the occurrence of event of 14-15 November 2016. In para no.4 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that the cylinder was not even in use, which means that the complainant himself has admitted in so many words in the complaint that he was not a user of the cylinder purchased by OP4 from OP1 to OP3. As complainant is not a user of the cylinder retained by him at his premises due to his relationship with OP4 and as such, certainly the complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The possession as retainer of a cylinder is different than that of the possession of the user of the LPG cylinder. Complainant has not claimed himself to be the user of the LPG cylinder, but has claimed himself to be the retainer thereof and  as such certainly complainant is not a consumer.

3.                Perusal of Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 further reveals that the complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with District Consumer Forum by the consumer, to whom said goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such services provided or agreed to be provided. Complainant is not a consumer to whom the LPG cylinder in question sold by OP1 to OP3 and nor he is the person to whom this cylinder delivered or agreed to be delivered or sold by OP1 to OP3 and as such, certainly complaint at the behest of the complainant, as a retainer of the LPG cylinder at the asking of OP4 is not maintainable. Complainant is  not a co-consumer with OP4, and nor it is a recognized consumer associated body or representative of Central or State Government and as such, case of the complainant does not fall under any of the clauses (a) to (d) of Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of this complaint at the instance of complainant is not maintainable even as per Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Rather complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint because he is not the consumer and nor the person competent to file the complaint in view of section 12 of the Act and as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is dismissed accordingly.

4.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:03.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.