Punjab

Sangrur

CC/412/2016

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  412

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.12.2016

 

 

1.Gurmail Singh son of Shyam Singh 2. Shyam Singh son of Chhota Singh 3. Raj Kaur W/o Shyam Singh, all R/o Village Bhojawali, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.             Indian Oil Corporation, Madhya Marg, SCO 34-35, Sec-19A, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

2.             Dhuri Gas Service, Shop No.21,22, Ram Bagh, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri, Tehsil & District Sangrur through its Manager.

3.             New India Assurance Company, Branch Malerkotla, Thandi Sarak, Opp. Telephone Exchange, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :               Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

For OP No.2             :               Shri R.K.Gupta, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurmail Singh, Shyam Singh and Raj Kaur, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant number 1 is the consumer of the OPs by getting a connection vide consumer number 20982.  The case in hand is regarding the faulty cylinder distributed by OP number 2 to Sukhchain Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of village Bhojawali under consumer number 14744. Further case of the complainant is that the cylinder in question was taken by the complainant from the said Sukhchain Singh for use, as such the complainant is said to be the consumer of the OPs.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 18.7.2014 at about 7.00 PM, when the complainant reached to his house from his work, his wife told to the complainant that their gas cylinder has exhausted, as such the complainant obtained one cylinder as stated above from Sukhchain Singh and when the complainant removed the cap of the cylinder for fitting with regulator and burner, then immediately the cylinder caught fire and engulfed with the flames and due to that the complainants suffered with the flames raised from the cylinder, as such the complainant and his family members were admitted in the Civil Hospital, Sangrur and the complainant number 2 was referred to Rajindera Hospital for further treatment. It has been further averred that the OPs supplied a faulty cylinder due to which the complainant and his family members got the burnt injury and spent a huge amount on the treatment.  Further case of the complainant is that though the complainant sent application dated 5.4.2016 through registered letter for settlement of the claim, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the policy and further claimed Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 1 was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, that the present claim is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties, that all the registered LPG consumers are covered under an insurance policy taken by the PSU Oil companies.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is submitted that the distributor checks the gas leakage in the cylinder pre delivery check up before delivery of the refill.

 

5.             In reply filed by Op number 2, legal objections are taken up that the complaint is bad for concealment of material fact, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is out of limitation and that the cylinder was not directly distributed to the complainant and was taken by himself from someone and the same was installed by himself with the gas stove and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been denied that the OP number 2 had supplied the alleged cylinder to Sukhchain Singh whose consumer number is 14744, as such any liability of OP has been denied.  It is stated that the application dated 5.4.2016 is void and is out of imitation.  It is stated that the OP number 2 has the duty to supply the cylinders to the consumers in good condition and the same is done by OP number 2.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

6.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the OP number 3 has been dragged into unnecessary litigation, that the complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts.  On merits, it is stated on the request of the OP number 2, the OP number 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Malerkotla issued a multi peril for LPG dealers policy in its favour for the period from 4.2.2014 to 3.2.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further case of the OP number 3 is that neither the complainant nor the OP number 2 ever intimated the OP regarding the alleged incident and due to this the OP could not investigate the matter.  It is further averred that the insured had breached the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy. However, it has been denied that the complainants sent any application dated 4.5.2016 as alleged.  Lastly, the OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 affidavit, Ex.C-3 copy of discharge slip, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-15 copies of bills, Ex.C-16 copy of DDR, Ex.C-17 copy of gas book, Ex.C-18 copy of gas passbook of Sukhchain Singh, Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-21 postal receipts and Ex.C-22 copy of application and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of SB voucher, Ex.Op2/3 copy of policy and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP3/2 copy of certificate, Ex.OP3/3 copy of terms and conditions and Ex.OP3/4 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

8.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

9.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of the OP number 2 under connection number 20982.  In the present case, the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP supplied the faulty cylinder to one Sukhchain Singh son of Amar Singh, who is having connection number 14744 under the Op number 2 and from whom the complainant took the cylinder for use.  It is further contended that when on 18.7.2014, the complainant removed the cap of the said cylinder for fitting with regulator and burner, then immediately, the cylinder caught fire and the complainants were engulfed with the flames and suffered injuries.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant is not a  consumer as no cylinder was either supplied to the complainant or to the said Sukhchain Singh.  But, the fact remains that the cylinder was supplied by the OPs, which was brought by the complainant from the said Sukhchain Singh, as the LPG gas cylinder is not an ordinary thing which is easily available in the market.  Moreover, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that a person  who buys any goods for  consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or, partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.  In the circumstances, the complainant being the user of the cylinder in question is a consumer of the OPs and his complaint is fully maintainable before this Forum.

 

10.           Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable or not or whether the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not timely intimating the Ops about the incident.

 

11.           It is an admitted fact of the complainant in the complaint that the incident of catching fire by the cylinder took place on 18.7.2014, in which the complainants suffered burn injuries and for that they took treatment from the Rajindera Hospital Patiala as is evident from the discharge slip Ex.C-3 as well as the copies of the medicine bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-15.  Further the case of the complainant in para number 6 of the complaint is that they sent the application to the OPs only on 5.4.2016 vide registered letter for settlement of the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide document Ex.C-22 and postal receipts Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-21. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not intimate the OPs earlier to that and  why he took such a long time of about 21 months from the date of incident to intimate the OPs about the incident in question, since the complainant and the dealer i.e. Op number 2 are the duty bound to intimate immediately about any such incident to the OP number 3 to enable the OP number 3 investigate the matter.  Further the learned counsel for OP number 3 has drawn our attention towards the general condition number 5 of Ex.OP3/3, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the insured shall upon the occurrence of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim under the policy, shall give immediate notice thereof to the Company and shall within fourteen days thereafter furnish to the company at his own expense, detailed particulars of the amount of the loss or damage together with such explanations and evidence to substantiate the claim as the company may reasonably require.  But, we may mention that in the present case, the complainant has miserably failed to intimate the OPs within the said stipulated period, rather intimated the Ops after about 21 months of the incident.  As such, we feel that the complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not intimating the OPs about the said incident of fire of cylinder.  Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

12.           In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

13.           A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           Presiden

                                                                                                        

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member