Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/84/2019

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jakhu Gas Service - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sanjeev Kumar

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.84 of 06.09.2019

            Date of Decision            :  09.01.2020

 

Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Nauriya Ram, resident of Village Chandher Kalan, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       M/s Jakhu Gas Service, Hapowal Road, Opposite Dana Mandi, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through Proprietor.

2.       Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D), Indane Area Office Bye-pass, Suchipind, Jalandhar 144009 through M.D

 

…Opposite parties

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate 

                                                (appointed by District Legal

                 Service Authority, SBS Nagar)     

For OP no.1                   :         Sh.S.L. Jain, Advocate

For OP no.2                   :         Ex-parte.

 

Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed by Surinder Kumar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs on the averments that he is consumer of OPs bearing customer no. 2200285826 and S.V number of passbook is 110000000185826 dated 05.11.2015. The OPs issued two gas cylinder to complainant on receipt of Rs.3050/- from him. On 09.06.2019 at 8.30 PM he used the above said gas cylinder for his daily needs.  The gas cylinders have no seal while in use so there is excess gas leaking from the cylinders and bursting of gas pipe line. Due to defect of the seal of the gas cylinder and excess supply of gas into pipe line incident took place and he has suffered lot of damage to his house and house articles and suffered burn injuries to save his family and house hold articles. The complainant alleged that the fire was put out with the help of entire inhabitants of the village. He also alleged that on 17.04.2018 some official of OPs visit to his house  and checked the equipments related to gas cylinder and charged Rs.177/- for this purpose vide invoice no. 7863 dated 17.04.2018.  He suffered burn injuries to save his family and house hold articles due to negligence on the part of OPs. He admitted in Health Centre Banga for his treatment for three years and he spent Rs.6792/- vide bill dated 25.06.2019. He also reported this matter in newspaper and also to SHO Behram. On 12.06.2019 he also reported this matter to Deputy Commissioner SBS Nagar and also to Gram Panchayat to look into the matter. But no action has been taken from the higher authorities. He approached OPs many times for settlement of his claim but no satisfactory reply was given to him. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, he suffered mental harassment and physical harassment. Therefore, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- for loss suffered to him due to fire, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

2.       Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is based on false and untrue facts. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any such act and conduct of OP no.1. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it was averred that gas connection obtained by complainant is covered by third party insurance obtained by OP no.1. This fact was  brought to the notice of complainant and he was advised to approach the insurance company but instead of doing so he has resorted to file a bogus complaint. The gas cylinders supplied to the consumers have a seal over it and same is removed before use of the cylinder.  No such incident ever took place in the manner as claimed by the complainant. Gas cylinders have no seal while in use so there is no question of excess gas leaking from the cylinder and  bursting of gas pipe line.  OP no.1 is not aware of the extent of loss suffered by the complainant. OP no.1 is not guilty of any defective or negligent services. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       Notice sent to OP no.2 on 12.09.2019  but RC/AD not received back. Sufficient period from service has already been lapsed. As such, OP no.2 is proceeded against exparte by this Forum vide order dated 15.10.2019.

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case very carefully.

5.       The complainant has tendered in evidence his self-declartion as Ex.CW-1 in support of his case. Ex.C-1 is copy of aadhar card of the complainant. Ex.C-2 is photocopy of passbook of gas.  Ex.C-3 is copy of form of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Ex.C-4 is photocopy of photographs. Ex.C-5 is copy of invoice dated 17.04.2018. Ex.C-6 is OPD Slip. Ex.C-7 is copy of retail invoice of medicines. Ex.C-8 is copy of newspaper clipping. Ex.C-9 is copy of letter addressed to SHO Behram regarding bursting of gas pipe of cylinder. Ex.C-10 is copy of general diary details. Ex.C-11 is copy of letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner SBS Nagar regarding compensation due to bursting of gas pipe of cylinder.  Ex.C-12 is copy of list regarding articles which have damaged in the incident of fire. Similarly, we have also examined other documents Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-19 which have tendered by complainant into rejoinder.

6.       To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs relied upon affidavit of Ram KishanJakhu as Ex.OP-1/A on the record. Ex.OP-1/1 is copy of LPG Trader Policy.

7.       From perusal of above said documents and evidence on the record, it is an established fact that he is consumer of OPs bearing customer ID no. 2200285826 and passbook number is 110000000185826 dated 05.11.2015. The OPs issued two gas cylinder to complainant on receipt of Rs.3050/- from him. On 09.06.2019 at 8.30 PM he used the above said gas cylinder for his daily needs.  The gas cylinders have no seal while in use so there is excess gas leaking from the cylinders and bursting of gas pipe line. Due to defect of the seal of the gas cylinder and excess supply of gas into pipe line incident took place and he has suffered lot of damage to his house and house articles and suffered burn injuries to save his family and house hold articles. He also alleged that on 17.04.2018 some official of OPs visit to his house  and checked the equipments related to gas cylinder and charged Rs.177/- for this purpose vide invoice no. 7863 dated 17.04.2018. He also alleged that he approached OPs many times for settlement of his claim but no satisfactory reply was given to him. Ex.C-13 is Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG which vital document on the record, which is reproduced as under:-

Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG

Indane distributors are obliged to obtain insurance policy to cover any losses including Third Party Insurance Towards accidents involving LPG. In addition PSU oil marketing companies  alsotake comprehensive ‘public liability policy for oil industries.’

Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries:-

Limit of Liability:-

Personal accident cover to third  parties and LPG Customers and property damage at authorized customers registered premises.

1. Personal Accident: Rs.6,00,000/- per person per event in case of death.
2. Personal expenses: Max Rs.2,00,000/- per person (Limited to Rs.30,00,000/- per event).
3. Property damage: Max Rs.2,00,000/-per event at authorized customers registered premises.
4. Per year in aggregate: Rs.10 crore.

Claim Procedure:-

Consumers are not required to apply to Insurance Company or to contact them directly.

8.       The counsel for complainant relied upon below noted judgments in support of his case :-

1. K.G Sathyanarayan versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and others reported in 2006(2) CPC 316 National Commission New Delhi.
2. Madhuri Govilka and others versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and others reported in IV (2006) CPJ 338 National Commission New Delhi.
3. Jose Philip Mampillil versus Premier Automobiles Ltd and another reported in 2004(2) SCC 278 Apex Court.

The case of complainant covered by above citations/judgments relied upon by complainant Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in case titled as Madhyuri Govika and others versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and another reported in IV(2006) CPJ 338, wherein it has been held that if LPG cylinder is defective and burnt, then it is certainly a manufacturing defect. Further it was held that inference of negligence of supply of defective cylinder on the part of OPs can be duly drawn. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable in this case. As per dealership agreement, liability of manufacturer vis-à-vis dealer is on principle to principle basis and both are liable to pay compensation because dealership also undertakes to provide services to the consumer. OP no.1 pleaded in his written reply that “gas stove, regulator and gas pipe”are branded articles and company is responsible for any fault, if accrued in routine manner and company is responsible for any fault or complaint and mechanic of the OPs will check the connection time to time and guide the complainant. Further, counsel for complainant relied upon citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in case titled as K.G Sathyanarayan versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and others reported in 2006(2) CPC 316 that accident caused due to use of poor quality of rubber tube of LPG. According to terms of agreement it was the duty of the distributor to provide free technical service to the customers as provided in general instructions, which was lacking in the present case. Distributor failed to perform his duty to ensure safety of consumer which had resulted in an accident. Distributor cannot escape its liability. As the risk stood covered under the insurance policy, insurer is liable to indemnify distributor. Held further an authorized distributor was acting under authority of company. Thecompany cannot avoid its liability as principal notwithstanding an agreement between the company and the distributor as held in Indian Oil Corporation’s case 1994 (2) CPJ 21 (SC)- complainant held entitled to 50% of total loss assessed at Rs.1,48,000/- on ground of contributory negligence. Further case law titled as Jose Philip Mampillil Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd & another reported in 2004(2) SCC 278 wherein it has been held that for manufacturing defect, held the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable.

9.  
10. He also alleged that on 17.04.2018 some official of OPs visit to his house  and checked the equipments related to gas cylinder and charged Rs.177/- for this purpose vide invoice no. 7863 dated 17.04.2018.  If the mechanic of OPs checked the gas connection of the complainant from to time then it is bounden duty of OPs to remove the defects and replace the defective parts with new one, as such OPs cannot wriggle out from the same. From document Ex.C-13 Public Liability Insurance Policies for accidents involving LPG liability is fixed on the part of OPs for accident caused due to use of poor quality of rubber tube of LPG. if LPG cylinder is defective and burnt, then it is certainly a manufacturing defect and inference of negligence of supply of defective cylinder on the part of OPs can be duly drawn. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable in this case.

11.     In the light of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and OPs are directed to pay  Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) jointly and severally as compensation for damage of articles caused due to incident of fire and medical expenses which has been incurred by complainant. The Ops are also directed to deposit Rs.5000/- in Legal Aid Fund of Consumer Forum.

12.     The compliance of above said be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt copy of this order.   

13.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:09.01.2020

                              (Kanwaljeet Singh)               (Kuljit Singh)

                                      Member                           President