Haryana

StateCommission

A/558/2018

BHARAT GAS AGENCY - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.SHAHPURI

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:02.05.2018

Date of final hearing:21.02.2024

Date of pronouncement:22.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Appeal No.558 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Bharat Gas Agency, Mustfabad, Near Ravi Dass Mandir, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor Smt. Sushila.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      Jagtar Singh son of Beeru Ram, R/o Village Gajiana,Tehsil Ladwa, District Yamuna Nagar.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. R.N. Baliyan, Advocate

 

2.      Food & Supply Controller, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative

 

3.      United Insurance Company Limited, 226, Canana Building, 1st Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai, agency office address Near Hindu Girl College, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

….Respondent No.3.

Through counsel Mr. B.S. Tanque, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Nitin Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Jagtar Singh, respondent No.1 in person.

                   None for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. B.S. Tanque, counsel for respondent No.3.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.03.2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (now “District Commission”), whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party No.1 (“OP No.1”) was directed as under:-

“Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the equity, fail play and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to issue direction to OP No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant in fire incident along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the present complaint till its realization. We also award a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses..”

 

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant purchased gas cylinder No.301702 from OP No.1 on 13.8.2013 and that the gas was found leaking from the said cylinder in the night which was lying in the room in village Gajlana and. It was alleged that at 8:00 AM when the mother of the complainant entered in the room for taking the house hold domestic luggage and lit up the bulb of electricity, suddenly the fire spread in the room and whole of the house hold articles lying in the room got burnt and the mother of the complainant also received burn injuries. the Motor cycle, fridge, two fans, sewing machine and other valuable articles, the educational degree certificate of the brother of complainant, one press and cash amount lying in the room got burnt. The total price of the burnt articles comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further alleged that the complainant lodged complaint to the fire brigade of Municipality Ladwa, which reached the spot and extinguished the fire. A sum of Rs.400/- as fees was paid for said purpose and the complainant also got lodged an DDR No.22 dated 14.8.2013 in police station, Babain. It was further alleged that the Patwari also visited the spot and made the report on 30.8.2013 about the said incident of burning articles. Thereafter, the said incident and after giving information to all the concerned the complainant approached the OPs and demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, but they refused to pay anything. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant prayed for issuance of directions to OPs to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for burning of the house hold items and Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony .

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written versions. OP No.1 in its written version submitted that at the time of supply of cylinder by the staff of OP No.1 first of all gas leakage of the cylinder was checked and if leakage is found then cylinder is not sold or supplied to the customer and sent back to the plant. It was further submitted that the gas cylinder is and should have been kept in the kitchen connected with the Hot Plate and it is not kept in the living rooms, so the complainant should have not kept the gas cylinder in the living room which is against the norms also. It was further submitted that however, on receipt of intimation from the complainant, the staff of the OP No.1 visited the village at the house of complainant and at that time the cylinder was found in the kitchen and complainant and his family members told that fire broke out because of leakage of gas cylinder but to the great surprise of the visiting staff of the OP No.1, everything in the kitchen was found intact and OK and the allegations of the complainant is self-contradictory. It was further submitted that the complainant alleged that the gas cylinder was lying in the living room and fire broke out there and when the representative of the OP No.1, the gas cylinder was found in the kitchen and there was no sign of fire in the kitchen, so this clearly shows that the fire, if broke out in the living room that broke out because of some other reason and not by alleged leakage of cylinder and the complainant and his family members have falsely alleged that the fire broke out because of leakage of gas cylinder. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that OP No.2 is coordinator only and has to watch and check the proper supply of the gas cylinder to the customer. It was further submitted that if any incident took place at the house of complainant that should have been proved and got verified and examined by some technical person and not by the Patwari. The OP No.2 checked the proper supply of gas cylinder to the customer and it is not responsible for any alleged leakage in the cylinder, as alleged by the complainant, so question of raising demand of any damage or compensation from the OP No.2 or payment thereof by the OP No.2 does not arise. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP No.3 in its written statement submitted that OP No.1 has not placed on file any insurance policy issued by OP No.3 and hence in the absence of the same, the OP No.3 pleads that there was no privity of contract between OP No.3 and OP No.1. It was further submitted that in the present case no intimation was received by the respondent company regarding the incident in question and answering OP has been deprived of the first hand information in this case, even no document has been provided to the company and no claim has been lodged with the company to allow it to process the claim. It was further submitted that in case any claim is lodged, it is the prerogative of the insurance company to investigate it by an independent surveyor for submission of the finding report and to depute an IRDA approved surveyor/s for assessment of any loss, but for non-intimation of the loss, if any, in this case, the OP No.3 has been deprived of its valuable right. Finally, it was submitted that  there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint vide its impugned order dated 27.03.2018 and directed the OP No.1 as mentioned in Para 1^st (Supra).

7.                Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 27.03.2018, appellant-OP No.1 has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 8.                 Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Jagtar Singh, respondent No.1 in person and Mr. B.S. Tanque, learned counsel for respondent No.3. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 since last ten dates of hearing. Once, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant (Authorized Representative) has appeared on its behalf in the month of November, 2018, thereafter nobody has turned up. With the kind assistance of the parties and their representatives the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

9.                 As per the version of learned counsel for appellant-OP No.1 learned District Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the respondent No.1-complainant is resident of village Gajlana, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra and the alleged occurrence as per version of the complainant took place at village Gujlana and as such the District Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Further, all the gas cylinders which are supplied by the appellant-OP No.1 to its customer are checked by the staff of the appellant-OP No.1 before delivery and if leakage is found then cylinder is not sold or supplied to the customer and sent back to the plant. Moreover, the gas cylinder should have been kept in the kitchen connected with the Hot Plate and that it should not have been kept in the living rooms. As per appellant, its staff also visited the house of respondent No.1-complainant and at the time of inspection, the alleged cylinder was found lying in the kitchen and that everything in the kitchen was found intact and OK, meaning thereby, the fire incident did not occur due to leakage in the gas cylinder and that there were other reasons because of which the fire incident had taken place.

10.               It is an admitted fact that that a fire incident took place in the house of respondent No.1-complainant on 13.8.2013 on account of leakage in the gas cylinder and that whole of the house hold articles lying in the room i.e. Motor cycle, fridge, two fans, sewing machine, educational degree and certificate of the brother of complainant and cash amount lying in the room got burnt and that the mother of the complainant also received burn injuries. It is also admitted fact that respondent No.1-complainant lodged complaint to the fire brigade of Municipality Ladwa, who reached the spot and extinguished the fire and took a sum of Rs.400/- as fees for said purpose. DDR No.22 dated 14.8.2013 in police station, Babain is also admitted. It is also admitted fact that the Patwari also visited the spot and made the entry report about the fire incident as also the burnt articles in revenue record vide report No.401 dated 14.8.2013.

11.              The contention was raised by learned counsel for appellant regarding territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the respondent No.1-complainant is resident of village Gajlana, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra and the occurrence took place at village Gujlana. In this regard, learned District Commission specifically mentioned in its impugned order dated 27.03.2018 which is reproduced as under:-

“it is pertinent to mention here that Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein the jurisdiction of the District Forum has been specified and the same is re-produced as under:-

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,— (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 3[carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 4[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

 

From the perusal of the above said Section 11(2) of the Act, it is amply clear that a complaint can be instituted against the OP, where the OP is actually and voluntarily resides or carry on business. Moreover, In the present matter, admittedly, the office of the present appellant-OP No.1 falls within the Jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar and as such, this Forum had got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

12.              The main controversy involved in the present mater is with regard to the cause of fire incident. A perusal of report No.401 entered by the Patwari reveals that the fire incident occurred due to the leakage of gas cylinder causing loss to the various house hold articles lying in the house of the respondent No.1-complainant. The above said report is duly signed by several respectable persons of the village including Shri Mahender Singh, X-Sarpanch, Jagir Singh, Panch and Balwant Singh, Panch. Similar entries about the fire incident are in the record of Fire Station, Ladwa. Moreover, there was no delay on the part of the respondent No.1-complainant while intimating the police, the Patwari of the Revenue Department and In-charge of Fire Brigade Station. Therefore, the version of appellant-OP No.1 about the cause of fire incident due to some any other reason and not because of leakage of gas cylinder is not tenable.

13.              From the above discussion, it is established that the fire incident took place in the house of the respondent No.1-complainant on account of leakage of gas cylinder as supplied by the present appellant-OP No.1. Further, there is no substance in the version of the appellant-OP No.1 that gas cylinder should have been kept in the kitchen only in view of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since, the present appellant-OP No.1 was duly intimated about the fire incident by the respondent No.1-complainant, so it was incumbent upon the appellant-OP No.1 to depute a duly qualified surveyor as approved by IRDA so as to establish the cause of incident and assess the loss, but it failed to do so. Further, It is also established that the present appellant-OP No.1 did not inform the insurance company i.e respondent No.3 about the fire incident and as such, respondent No.3 has been prevented by the act and conduct of present appellant-OP No.1 to have a fact finding enquiry through an independent investigator/loss assessor. Moreover, there is no mala-fide on record to show as to why the complainant will make false claim. Nobody will like to put his house on fire and sustain burn injuries to get claim. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of present appellant-OP No.1 stands proved.

14.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Commission. Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, stands dismissed.

15.               The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and due verification as per rules.

16.               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

17.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

18.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 22^nd February, 2024

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III