O R D E R

        This is a complaint filed U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards compensation for the death of Suresh Reddy and to award costs on the following averments.  On 09.04.2012 due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by the 2^nd OP to the 1^st complainant, it caught fire, and in the said accident the son of 1^st complainant by name Ramireddy and her daughter-in-law and grandson by name Suresh Reddy have sustained burn injuries and were taken to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment and on the same day Suresh Reddy died in the hospital upon which the doctors conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the complainants  for cremation.  The above said fire accident took place due to the defective cylinder supplied to the complainants and as there is  deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on the part of men of O.Ps. the complainants are deprived of the love and affection of the deceased, who was aged about 2 years and was the only grandson of the complainants.  Hence the complaint.

        The 2^nd OP filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the deceased and the 2^nd OP and that the members of family of deceased were not at all the registered consumers and they did not utilize the services of the OP and the alleged accident did not take place due to leakage of gas and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same merits no consideration and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

In furtherance of complainants case the Affidavit evidence of PW-1 is filed and exhibits A1 to A5 are marked.  Per contra on behalf of O.Ps. the Affidavit evidence of RW-1 is filed.  The counsel for respective parties filed brief written arguments and have also submitted oral arguments.

        Perused the material placed on record.  Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

        The learned counsel for the complainants has contended that OP-2 has supplied defective cylinder and as there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder on 09.04.2012 the same caught fire and was blasted and in the said accident the deceased Ramireddy, his wife and son sustained severe burn injuries and were taken to KGH, Visakhapatnam for treatment and while they were undergoing treatment the deceased Ramireddy died and as the men of O.Ps. were in dereliction of their duties and as there was deficiency in service on their part  the above said fire accident took place and as such the O.Ps. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

As against the above said argument the learned Advocate for OP-2 has contended that OP-2 did not supply any cylinder to the deceased Ramireddy and as the alleged fire accident did not take place due to blasting of the cylinder and as there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties, to this case, the OP’s are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.

        When the contesting OP did not admit the supply of Gas Cylinder to the deceased, and as he has taken specific plea that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties the burden heavily rests on the complainants to prove that deceased has purchased the Gas Cylinder from the 2^nd OP and as there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder the fire accident took place.

        The person claiming himself as “Consumer” should satisfy three conditions, namely:-

i) The service should have been rendered to him.

ii) The service should be hired by him.

iii) For hiring the service he should have paid consideration in the manner envisaged by section-2 (1) (d) ii of the Act.

        To prove the above said three conditions the complainants adduced Affidavit evidence and got marked the copy of FIR, Post Mortem Certificate of deceased Ramireddy, copies of household cards of complainants, copy of legal notice as exhibits A1 to A5 respectively.

        As seen from the contents of FIR on 09.04.2012 at about 4 AM while the son of Ramireddy woke up and was crying, Ramireddy lit a match stick upon which there was huge fire and the household articles were burnt in the said accident and that the deceased Ramireddy, his wife and son sustained burn injuries.  It further reveals that the above said accident took place due to leakage of Gas from the cylinder.  Except that the said report does not reveal as to from whom the same was purchased and as to who is the manufacturer of the said cylinder.  Exhibit A5 is the copy of Lawyer’s notice and as per its contents on 09.04.2012 at about early hours due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by 2^nd OP the fire accident was occurred.

        As we have already stated supra the 2^nd OP has totally denied about supply of Gas Cylinder to the deceased.  In the counter filed by 2^nd OP it is specifically averred that the deceased and his family members were not at all registered consumers and did not utilize their services in use of any cylinder.

        When such a plea is taken by the 2^nd OP and when a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed towards compensation, the complainants are bound to place cogent evidence to prove that 2^nd OP supplied the cylinder and there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder and the same caught fire.  In normal circumstances to purchase a gas cylinder from a dealer, necessary amount is to be deposited with him upon which a pass book will be given to the consumer and as and when the cylinder is supplied,  the dealer would make an entry of said transaction in the said pass book as well as in the register maintained by him.  The complainants did not produce the pass book to show that the deceased Ramireddy was a registered consumer and on a particular date, the defective cylinder was supplied to him.  The learned counsel for complainant has contended that all the documents as well as the household articles were burnt in the above said fire accident and as such the complainants could not file any document to show that the defective cylinder was purchased by Ramireddy from the OP.  If the above said contention is believed to be true, the complainants aught to have taken necessary steps to issue a notice to 2^nd OP for production of relevant records to establish that deceased Ramireddy was their registered consumer.  No such steps were taken by the complainants to prove that there was consumer and service provider relationship in between the deceased Ramireddy who was the Manager of the family and the 2^nd OP.  In a decision in Rangannagari Yadavreddy Vs Vijaya Kumar reported in 11 (2001) CPJ 391 where in it is held: In the absence of proof by way of some evidence the averments of the complaint by themselves cannot be accepted and when the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations leveled in his complaint the same fails  for want of evidence and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra if the complainant fails to place cogent evidence to prove his case his complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Coming to case on hand immediately after the accident a report was given to police and the police recorded the statement of deceased Ramireddy and basing on the said statement a case in crime No.70/2012 under section 174 CRPC was registered.  As seen from contents of the statement of the deceased the fire accident took place due to leakage of gas.  Except  that there is no whisper in the said statement about the purchase of said cylinder and as to from whom the same was purchased for consideration.  In normal circumstances when a crime is registered the police would visit the place of incident and would make necessary enquiry and would prepare inquest report to know the probable cause  for the accident. But for the reasons best known to the complainants they did not produce any such inquest report and no steps were taken to summon the police to produce the CD to know as to why the said fire accident took place.  Except making a bare allegation against the O.Ps. to say that the defective cylinder was supplied by the 2^nd OP and that 1^st OP was the  manufacturer of the same, the complainants did not produce cogent evidence to prove the said fact.

        No evidence is produced to believe that the deceased Ramireddy or any of his family members, was a registered consumer of Gas cylinder and the same was supplied by 2^nd OP to them.  When the complainants have miserably failed to prove that the 2^nd OP supplied the defective cylinder which was the cause for the accident no liability can be fashioned on the 1^st OP to believe that the defective cylinder was supplied to the 2^nd OP and their men were in dereliction of duties in supplying a defective cylinder to the latter.

        Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have miserably failed to   prove that there was consumer and service provider relationship in between the deceased Ramireddy and the O.Ps. and that the deceased has availed the service of O.Ps. for consideration.

        In the resut, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of July, 2014.

Member                                                                 President

C.C.No.36/2013

For complainant:-                                   For opposite parties:-

        PW 1.                                                       RW 1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A-1  First Information report in crime no.70 of 2012 of Bogapuram 

           PS, Dt.09.04.2012.

Ex.A-2  Pm of Pilli Sureshreddy, Dt.09.04.2012.

Ex.A-3  Xerox copy of house hold card of first complainant, 

            Dt.12.03.2006.

Ex.A4   Xerox copy of house hold card of second

           complainant,Dt.20.03.2006.

Ex.A5   Copy of the legal notice, Dt.11.03.2013.
 

For OP:  NIL

                                                                                President