Delhi

North East

CC/31/2019

Sh. Mehar Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.31/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Mehar Chand R/o H.No. 50A, Gali No. 3, Old KardamPuri, Shahdara Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.           3.	Indian Oil Corporation Through Executive Director 2nd Floor, World Trade Center, Babar Road, Delhi 110001   ShaheedSubhash Gas Agency Through its Proprietor Opposite Police Station G.T Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032   The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Director DO-13, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi 110002	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER  :

15.03.2019 02.06.2023 06.07.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 07.02.2017, the Complainant had booked a domestic LPG cylinder from the Opposite Party No. 2 vide order number 2000155993. One domestic LPG cylinder was delivered to the house of the Complainant. On 13.02.2017, the newly delivered cylinder was put in use and after that cylinder caught fire due to leakage of gas. House of the Complainant was ruined/destroyed due to the fire incident by which Complainant suffered huge loss. Complainant had immediately called on 100 and on fire service. After that fire service reached there and had tried to control the fire. After herculean efforts the firemen were able to control the situation. By that time the household article including all the clothes, electronic equipment and valuable articles were destroyed in the said fire incident. On 14.02.2017, Complainant made a complaint with the Opposite Parties but they did not take any steps. Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties. After receipt of the notice officials of the Opposite Parties came to the house of the Complainant for the spot inspection and for the loss valuation. On 27.03.2017, Complainant had received a letter from the surveyor of the Insurance Company. After receiving the letter, Complainant had visited the office of the surveyor and had provided the list and the details of the damage caused due to the fire. Complainant stated that it was strange that no one had come at the spot to assess the loss caused due to the fire and without any spot inspection and the assessment the Opposite Parties assessed the loss only to the tune of Rs. 68,200/- without considering the details provided by the Complainant. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the damages of Rs. 4.5 lacs to the complainant in lieu of the loss caused due to the fire and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is statedthat it had entered into a Distributorship Agreement dated 31.01.2017 whereby the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent. It is stated that on 23.02.2017 the Opposite Party No. 2 appraised it that the site of incident was atunregistered address. It is stated that asper the record of the distributor Fire Brigade Report as well as statement given to the police by the Complainant, the registered address of the Complainant is 52 kardampuri, Delhi, whereas the alleged incident took place at H.No. 50 A kardampuri, Delhi, which addressis not registered with Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that therefore it is possible that the Complainant was using a cylinder which was not supplied by the Opposite Party No. 2 and the said cylinder might have be procured by the Complainant from some other source. It is stated that the location where the incident took place is differentfrom the registered address of the consumer. The Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the assertions made by the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It has denied the assertions of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that there is no allegation of deficiency of service against the Opposite Party No. 3.It is stated that the incident where the fire took place is different from the registeredaddress of the Complainant. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and it is prayed the complaint be dismissed.
5. On 22.01.2020 the Complainant submitted that he did not want to file rejoinder.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1has filed affidavit of Shri. Rajeev Kumar, working as Divisional LPG Head, Delhi Indane DO,wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

8. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri. Rishi, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.2as mentioned in the written statement.
9. However, after filing the written statement none has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3. Hence, Opposite Party No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.04.2022.

Arguments & Conclusion

10. We have heard theLd. Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a gas cylinder with Opposite Party No. 2 on 07.02.2017. The gas cylinder wassupplied at the address of the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that on 13.02.2017, the said cylinder was put to use and the fire broke out within a very short time.In the said fire, the Complainant suffered huge loss. The case of the Complainant is that the cylinder caught fire as there was some leakage in the gas cylinder. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the registered address of the Complainant is different from the address where the incident took place. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that therefore it cannot be said that the cylinderwhich was supplied to the Complainant at his registered address was being used at the spot where the fire took place.
11. The perusal of the record shows that the registered addressof the Complainant with the Opposite Party No.2 is 52, Kardampuri, Delhi.The perusal of the report of Delhi Fire Service shows the place of incident as     H.No. 50,Gali No. 3 Ambedkarchowk, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi. The perusal of the application given by the Complainant to the police regarding the faulty cylinder shows his address as H.No. 50 A, Old Kardampuri. Therefore, it is clear that place of incident is different from the address of the Complainant which is registeredwith Opposite Party No. 2.
12. The above said plea of using the cylinder at the address which is not the registered address of the consumer was taken by the Opposite Party in their written statements. The Complainant has opted not to file the rejoinder. By filing the rejoinder, the Complainant would have clarified the issue regarding the registered address and the place of incident.In his evidence filed by the Complainant he has also not clarified this aspect therefore it is concluded that the alleged incident took place at the address which was not registered with the Opposite Party No. 2 and the gas cylinder was not supplied at the address where the incident of fire took place. Therefore, the possibility of using the cylinder other than the supplied by the Opposite Party No. 2 cannot be ruled out especially under the circumstances, the Complainant has opted not to clarify this aspect by not filing the rejoinder and also keeping in view the fact the Complainant did not controvert this fact in his evidence.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
14. Order announced on 06.07.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)