Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1495

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaswinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Kapoor

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                           PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

(1)               First Appeal No.1495 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 07.10.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:  18.03.2015

 

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Punjab State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Sector 19, Chandigarh through its constituted attorney Sh.Pankaj Mathur.        

                                                                                                                                                                    …..Appellant/Opposite party No.2

                                      Versus

 

1.      Jaswinder Singh aged 28 years s/o Jagpal Singh r/o Village   Jangirana Tehsil & District Bathinda.

 

                                                                                                                                                                        ……Respondent/complainant

 

2.      National Insurance Company Limited, The Mall Bathinda         through its Regional Manager.

3.      New  India Assurance Company Limited Bhatinda through its           Manager

4.      M/s Sangat Indane Service through its prop. Rupinderjit Singh         s/o Mukhtiar Singh r/o House No.197/3 Shant Nagar Bathinda                                                                                                                                                             …..Respondent /Opposite parties

         

First Appeal against order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.    

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                            : Sh.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate

          For the respondent No.1      : Sh.Damanjeet Advocate

          For the respondent No.2      : Sh.P.S Bedi, Advocate

          For the respondent No.3      : Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent No.4      : Ex-parte.

          . . . . ……………………………………………………………….

                                             AND

 

(2)                        First Appeal No.1638 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.11.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:         18.03.2015

 

M/s Sangat Indane Service, Sangat through its Proprietor Rupinderjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of House No.197/3, Shant Nagar, Bathinda.        

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellant/Opposite party No.1

         

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      Jaswidner Singh son of Jagpal Singh resident of village          Jangirana, Tehsil and District Bathinda

                                                                  

                                                          ….Respondent /Complainant

 

2.      M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, 3079/3, J.B Tito Marg, Sadik Nagar, New Delhi through its General   Manager

3.      National Insurance  Company Limited, The Mall, Bathinda       through its Regional Manager.

4.      New India Assurance Company Limited, Bathinda through its           Manager

 

                                                          ….Respondents/Opposite parties.

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vindo Kumar Gupta, Member.    

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             : None

          For the respondent No.1      : Sh.Damanjeet Advocate

          For the respondent No.2      : Ex-parte

          For the respondent No.3      : Sh.Parminder Singh

          For the respondent No.4      : Ex-parte.

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

          By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of above referred two first appeals together as they can be conveniently disposed of because they have arisen out of the same order dated 29.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda, accepting the complaint of Jaswinder Singh complainant against OP No.1 and 2 only and directing them to pay the compensation amount of Rs.70633/- to the complainant, besides cost of litigation of Rs.5000/-.

2.      First Appeal No. 1495 of 2011 has been preferred by  OP No.2 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd through its General Manager against the same, whereas second First Appeal No.1638 of 2011 has been preferred by OP No.1 M/s Sangat Indane Service through its proprietor Rupinderjit Singh. Jaswinder Singh is the complainant and M/s Sangat Indane Service through its proprietor is OP No.1, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd through its General Manager is OP No.2, National Insurance Company Limited is OP No.3 and New India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager is OP No.4 in the complaint and they be referred, as such hereinafter, for the sake of convenience

3.      The complainant Jaswinder Singh has filed this complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he is holder of one LPG Gas Connection bearing Consumer no.226131 registered with the OP No.1, which is authorized dealer of OP No.2 and carries on its business in the name and style of M/s Indian Oil Corporation. OP No.1 supplied gas connection, vide Customer Subscription Voucher No.2393212 dated 20.02.2008/6131 to the complainant, as dealer and OP No.2 has supplied one gas cylinder, pipe, regulator and gas stove to the complainant against charges. The complainant has been receiving supply of gas from the above gas connection by making the payment. On 18.01.2010, the supervisor of the M/s Sangat Indane Gas Service OP No.1 visited the premises of the complainant at village Jangirana, Tehsil and District Bathinda  and inspected the above said gas cylinder, pipe, regulator, gas stove and charged Rs.40/- as inspection fees, vide receipt No.4532 dated 18.01.2010. On 17.04.2010, when the wife of the complainant did some work in the kitchen at the above village, she saw flames on the gas pipe and gas cylinder and she scurried away forthwith to avoid or to escape injuries. Gas cylinder supplied by the OPs blasted after catching  fire and thereby caused extensive damages to the kitchen, utensils and electronic articles in the room of complainant. The house of the complainant was badly damaged with this blast of the cylinder. This blast of cylinder took place just within three months from the aforesaid inspection carried out by the supervisor of the OP No.1. The OPs supplied the defective gas cylinder, regulator, gas stove and gas pipe of sub-standard quality to the complainant despite charging therefor and it was complete deficiency in service on their part. The above-referred blast of the gas cylinder took place due to negligence of  service on the part of OP No.1, the authorized dealer of the OP No.2. OP No.3 is the insurance company with which OP No.1 was insured at the time of this incident. OP No.2 deputed Mr. Suresh Kumar to inspect the spot and to assess the damage suffered by the complainant and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,78,000/- and submitted his report on 20.4.2010 to OPs including OP No.3. That despite submission of the report, the OPs invented excuses only to wash their hands off their liability in this case. A registered legal notice dated 22.09.2010 was also sent  by complainant through his counsel to OPs and OPs sent reply to this legal notice. Another legal notice dated 12.10.2010 was also sent by complainant through his counsel to OPs and OPs gave vague reply thereof on 19.10.2010. The complaint has filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- towards loss caused due to blast of the gas cylinder, besides Rs.1,00,000/- for delay in the payment of compensation amount and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation and Rs.5500/- as counsel fee along with interest @18% p.a from the date of incident till its payment to him.

4.      Upon notice, OP No.1 M/s Sangat Indane Service through its proprietor filed detailed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complainant gave information to the police on the basis of the report No.11 dated 18.04.2010 to save his own skin from the halter of legal liability. That even from the photographs, it was not possible for bursting of gas cylinder at all. That this incident took place due to own fault of the complainant only. It was denied that complainant is the consumer of OP No.1. It was admitted that OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2. It was further averred that OP No.1 has not issued the gas connection no. 226131 to the complainant. It was further averred that no consumer of OP No.1 held gas connection no.226131, but one  Jaswinder Singh son of Jaspal Singh held connection no.6131. It was further averred that there is no proof with complainant that the above mishap took place due to inferior quality equipment supplied by the OPs. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 was absolutely denied in this case. OP No.1 also denied any unfair trade practice on its part in this case and it prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.      OP No.2  M/s Indian Oil Corporation filed its  separate written reply raising preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2.  That as per agreement entered into between the Indian Oil Corporation and distributor, OP No.1 shall act and shall always be deemed to have  acted as principal and not as an agent of the OP No.2, as per Clause 17 of the distributorship Contract between the parties. It was further emphasized in the pleadings by OP No.2 that OP No.1 being principal distributor has acted as principal and not as an agent of OP No.2. It further averred that OP No.2 has also taken public liability policy from OP No.3 and complaint deserves dismissal on this score. It further averred that blast took place in the house of the complainant on 17.4.2010, as reported by OP No.1, whereupon, Sh.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Manager LPGS was deputed to investigate the matter and he submitted his detailed report about the incident. It was further pleaded that wife of Jaswinder Singh complainant was boiling milk on gas stove and she came out of kitchen and when she again visited the kitchen after 5-6 minutes, she saw flames in the kitchen near the cylinder knob and pipe. The above-referred incident took place on account of own negligence of the complainant side. It was further averred in the written reply that as per report of the Assistant Manager LPG (S) by physical verification of the premises of the complainant, he ruled out any fault in the equipment supplied to complainant. It was further averred that the cylinder was in the house at the time of incident and it was replaced on 15.4.2010 and there was no leakage smell from the cylinder from 15.4.2010 to 17.04.2010. The complaint was also contested even on merits  on the above-referred grounds by OP No.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      OP No.3 National Insurance Company filed its separate written reply raising legal objections that complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. That the complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands. It was denied in the written reply that complainant is the consumer and complaint is maintainable on that point. The complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. It was further averred by OP No.3 that complex question of facts and laws are involved in this case, which can be determined in summary proceedings by the consumer fora. It was further averred in the written reply by OP NO.3 that it deputed surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the same to the tune of Rs.70,633/- only. That as per policy, the liability of insurance company for property damage is maximum to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-  and after deduction of excess clause, the amount payable in one case does not exceed to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.  It was further pleaded that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.70,633/- only and after deducting the excess of Rs.10,000/- , an amount of Rs.60,633/- would be payable, subject to production of inspection report by Indian Oil Corporation i.e. OP No.2, which has not yet been received. It was further averred that there is no merit in the complaint of the complainant and it deserves dismissal.

7.      OP No.4 filed its separate written reply, it also contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill of OP No.4. That complex question of facts and law are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. It was further pleaded that the loss is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, as only accidental damage to the property, caused by or arising from installation of gas filled LPG cylinder in the premises of customer of insured is covered. That loss in the present case occurred much after the installation of the gas connection and it is outside the purview of the terms and conditions of the policy. OP No.4 contorvered other averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.  

8.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the photocopy of gas connection passbook of the complainant Ex.C-1, photocopy of S.V Vouchers Ex.C-2, photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6, newspaper cuttings Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-8, copy of legal notice Ex.C-9, postal receipt Ex.C-10, copy of legal notice Ex.C-11, postal receipt Ex.C-12, copy of final survey report Ex.C-13 and affidavit of complainant Jaswinder Singh Ex.C-14, affidavit of Nihala Singh Ex.C-15, affidavit of Gurmeet Kaur Ex.C-16, copy of DDR Ex.C-17, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-18. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Rupinderjit Singh Ex.R-1, copy of letter dated 10.1.2005 Ex.R-2, copy of terms and conditions of policy containing pages 1 to 13 Ex.R-3, copy of insurance policy Ex.R-4, copy of customer service cell Ex.R-5, copy of letter dated 1.3.2009 Ex.R-6, copy of inspection report Ex.R-7, copy of insurance policy Ex.R-8, copy of claim procedure Ex.R-9, affidavit of Mahesh Chand Ex.R-10, copy of gas connection book Ex.R-11, affidavit of Sh.J.R Sharma, Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ex.R-12, copy of insurance policy of New Indian Assurance Company Ex.R-13, copy of Multi Perils Insurance Policy for Liquified Petroleum Gas Dealers Ex.R-14, affidavit of Parmod Mittal, Director M/s Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Limited Ex.R-15, affidavit of Suresh Kumar Assistant Manager LPG Sales Indian Oil Corporation Limited Ex.R-16, copy of LPG Accident Report Ex.R-17, copy of Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries Ex.R-18, copy of schedule Ex.R-19, copy of policy Ex.R-20 and copy of Form No.SL-50 Ex.R-21. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda accepted the complaint of the complainant by awarding compensation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Bathinda dated 29.07.2011, the First Main Appeal No.1495 of 2011 has been filed by OP No.2 now appellant, whereas another First Appeal No.1638 of 2011 has been preferred by OP No.1.

9.      We have heard Ld.Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. We refer to evidence on the record for the settlement of the controversy raging between the parties in this case. We have examined the respective pleadings of the parties on the record as well. Affidavit of Jaswinder Singh complainant in support of his pleadings is Ex.C-14 on the record. The contention of the contesting OPs now appellants is that complainant is not their consumer. This point goes to the root of the case and needs adjudication at the threshold by us. Perusal of photocopy of gas connection passbook is Ex.C-1 and it has proved that complainant is the holder of the gas connection no.226131 with OP No.1. The complainant has been receiving the supply of the gas cylinder thereupon and cylinder was allotted to him by OP No.1, as distributor along with regulator, vide Ex.C-2. Photocopy of voucher No.2393212  dated 20.02.2008 is on the record. The submission of OP No.1 and 2 falls to the ground on this point that complainant is not their consumer.

          The complainant suffered damage to his kitchen, utensils and other electronics articles in his house. The fact of incident of bursting the cylinder is not much in dispute in this case. The newspaper clipping Ex.C-8 and it coupled with photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 have been examined by us on the record. They have proved this fact that there was extensive damage on account of the blast of the gas cylinder in the house of the complainant. The above-referred documents remained unrebutted by the OPs on the record. The complainant also served a legal notice Ex.C-9 on the OP and postal receipt thereof is Ex.C-10, another legal notice Ex.C-11 and postal receipt Ex.C-12 on the record. The report of the surveyor deputed to make an assessment of the loss is Ex.C-13 is on the record. The surveyor submitted report to OP No.3, vide Ex.C-13 stating that the complainant suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.70633/- on account of blast of the gas cylinder in the kitchen of his house. The affidavit of Nihala Singh is Ex.C-15, affidavit of Gurmeet Kaur is Ex.C-16 and they further lend support to the case of the complainant, as pleaded in this case. The complainant also lodged the police report Ex.C-17 about the bursting of the gas cylinder and thereby spread of the flame. Ex.C-18 is receipt No.4532 dated 18.01.2010 proved by the complainant to the effect that he paid amount of Rs.40/- to the supervisor on behalf of OP No.1 for supervision of the installation of the gas equipment at the house of the complainant.

10.    The above-referred evidence has been adduced on the record by the complainant to support his averments to the effect that he suffered loss on account of bursting of the sub standard material supplied by OP No.1 and 2 to him.

11.    The OPs also adduced evidence in rebuttal of evidence of the complainant on the record. The evidence produced by the OPs also needs to be examined by us with able assistance of counsel for the parties. The affidavit of proprietor of OP No.1 is Ex.R-1 on the record. The pith of the affidavit is that OP No.1 submitted that the damage to the cylinder took place due to own negligence of the wife of the complainant. That there was no fault in the installation of the gas connection, as well as supply of any inferior quality of the equipment to the complainant by OP No.1. That copy of the guidelines Ex.R-6 issued to all the distributors, including the complainant are required to be followed. There is no chance of any error regarding inspection of domestic connections, as carried out in this case. He attributes that fault is entirely due to own negligence of the complainant's wife in handling the gas connection cylinder. The OP No.1 is authorized dealer of OP No.2, vide authorization letter Ex.R-2 is on the record. He further stated that the insurance policy with National Insurance Company is Ex.R-3 and insurance policy with New India Insurance Company is Ex.R-4. The matter was duly reported to OP No.2 about this incident by OP No.1. Ex.R-2 is the letter addressed to OP No.1 by Chief Area Manager of OP No.2 to the effect that he has been appointed as distributor of OP No.2 on the terms and conditions as contained in the Distributors Agreement. The policy document of National Insurance Company is Ex.R-3 of public liability policy for oil industries. Ex.R-5 is Customer Service Cell. Ex.R-6 is the document pertaining to mandatory checks of domestic connections. Ex.R-7 is Indane Distributorship Inspector Report on the record. Ex.R-8 is the document of National Insurance Company with regard to property damaged regarding excess of Rs.10,000/- for any one accident under Section 1. Ex.R-9 is claim procedure requiring the production of documents for submission of the claim. Ex.R-10 is affidavit of Mahesh Chand to the effect that he remained subscriber of the OP No.1 and that no such incident took place at his house. The equipment supplied to him was of good quality. We find no substance in this affidavit on the record. We cannot term that the entire block of equipment was defective. This witness might have received standard quality of the equipment fortuitously from the OPs and, thus, raised no grievance thereupon. Another affidavit of Sh.J.R Sharma, Senior Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Company is Ex.R-12 on the record to the effect that the liability to the maximum is of Rs.1 lac for damages. The complainant is not entitled to the claimed amount of Rs.1,78,000/- in this case. Ex.R-13 is policy document of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Ex.R-14 is terms and conditions of Multi Perils Insurance Policy for Liquified Petrolium Gas Dealers. The affidavit of Parmod Mittal, Director M/s Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Limited, surveyor deputed to make an assessment of the loss is Ex.R-15, wherein he found the loss to the extent of Rs.60,633/-, which was caused to the complainant by deducting excess of Rs.10,000/-, he found claim payable to complainant to the tune of Rs.60,633/- only. The affidavit of Suresh Kumar, Assistant Manager , LPG Sales Indian Oil Corporation Ltd  is Ex.R-16 on the record to the effect that OP No.1 is distributor of OP No.2. That the Distributorship Agreement contained Clause 17, vide which relationship of OPNo.2 and OP No.1 is on principal to principal basis and not of agent and principal. It further stated that OP No.2 is not liable in this case at all. It  further stated that OP No.2 has also taken Public Liability Policy from OP No.3. Ex.R-17 is LPG Accident Report about the incident in question. Ex.R-18 is Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries on the record.

12     The above evidence has been adduced on the record by the OPs to refute the claim of the complainant.

13     The submission of counsel for OP No.1 and 2 now appellants is that expert  report ruled out any defect in the equipment, which could be the cause of this blast. The submission of the OPs now appellants is that order of the District Forum is unsustainable. The report, which has been relied upon by the OP No.1 and 2 now appellant in this case is Ex.R-17 on the record to the effect that  cylinder bursted due to own negligence of wife of the complainant in handling the equipment as she left it unattended, while boiling the milk on it. This report submitted by Suresh Kumar AM LPG has been pressed by the OPs to exonerate them from any liability. We have examined this report on the record, it is recorded in it that the equipment could not be ascertained since the cylinder was profusely burnt. That it was checked by delivery boy on 18.01.2010 during the mandatory drive. The complainant himself admitted this fact that supervisor checked it and he paid Rs.40/- to him for the supervision. It cannot be said that after 18.01.2010, the sub-standard quality of the material could not manifest at any time. We cannot persuade with the submission of the OPs now appellant that blast occurred in the gas cylinder due to own fault of the complainant's wife in handling it. There is no violation of any mandatory requirement, which was to be  followed by the complainant or his wife in this case. We do not find any force in this submission of the OPs that gas cylinder burst due to own fault of the complainant. We find that there is an ample evidence on the record that the gas cylinder burst and extensive damage was caused to complainant thereby. Even the surveyor deputed by the OPs, who found the assessment of the loss to the extent of Rs.70,633/-, vide survey report Ex.C-13 on the record. The report of the surveyor carries weightage, as surveyor is appointed under the Insurance Act and his report can be ignored only when there is strong contrary evidence on the record to rebut it. We do not find any contrary evidence on the record to rebut the report of the surveyor Ex.C-13 on the record, which was appointed by the OPs under the Insurance Act.  The surveyor, vide his report Ex.C-13 found the damage to the extent of Rs.70,633/-, which was suffered by the complainant due to bursting of the gas cylinder. We do not find any cogent evidence on the record to rebut this report of the surveyor nor there is any other infirmity in the order of the District Forum to this effect that District Forum erred in reaching this conclusion. We find that the principle of res ipsa loquitur also fully applies in this case. The bursting of gas cylinder took place on account of sub-standard quality of the material supplied to the complainant  by OP No.1 only.

14.    The District Forum fastened the liability on OP No.1 and 2 in this case to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally to the complainant. The counsel for OP No.2 now appellant of main Appeal No. 1495 of 2011 submitted that there was relationship of  principal to principal basis between OP No.1 and OP No.2 and OP No.2 could not be made  liable for it. We find substance in the submission of counsel for OP No.2, now appellant of the Appeal No.1495 of 2011 on the record. Our attention has been drawn to the Distributorship Agreement entered into between OP No.1 and OP No.2 on the record in this case. We find that Clause 17 of the Distributorship Agreement is clear on this point. Vide Ex.R-21, the Distributorship Agreement, it contains Clause 17 to the effect that "all contracts or engagements entered into by the Distributor with the customers for sale of LPG and/or the sale and/or repairs of appliances and/or connections thereof with LPG Cylinder (filled or empty) and/or refills and/or pressure regulators and/or attached equipment, the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation, and the Corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/or engagements and/or in respect of any act of omission on the part of the Distributor, his servants, agents and workmen in regard to such installation, sale, distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. The Distributor shall be bound to inform the customers in writing of the provision, through correspondence or at the time of enrolment of the customer."

15.    We find that Clause 17 of the Distributorship Agreement makes the relationship between OP No.1 and 2 on principal to principal basis and not as an agent and principal. This is important provision of the law, which has been overlooked by the District Forum on this point. The matter has also examined by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd… Vs… Shri Hansmukhbhai M Patel in FA No.527 of 2006, decided on 13.08.2012, wherein National Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council and Others reported in 1994(1) SCC 397 and the three Members Judgment of the National Commission in the case of  M/s Flame Gas Services and others Vs. Aklesh Kumar Bansal and others, reported in CPR 1995 (1) 318 that relationship between the dealer and the IOC is one of the principal to principal basis and not as the principal to agent. It was also held that since the relationship was of principal to principal basis, hence there was no privity of contract between the IOC and the consumer. The complaint filed against the Indian Oil Corporation is not maintainable, as rightly observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above-referred authority Indian Oil Corporation Ltd… Vs… Shri. Hansmukhbhai M. Patel and others (supra).

16.    Consequently, the order of the District Forum  holding OP no.2 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to complainant is erroneous and unsustainable and is hereby set aside in this appeal qua OP No.2 now appellant of First Appeal No.1495  of 2011. We find that the District Forum has correctly fastened the liability on OP No.1 in this case to the extent of compensation of Rs.70,633/-  being the loss as assessed by the surveyor, payable to complainant. OP No.1 now appellant of First Appeal No.1638 of 2011  has been rightly held liable to pay the compensation of Rs.70,633/- to the complainant by the District Forum in the order under appeal and there is no legal infirmity in the same.

17.    As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.1495 of 2011  and set aside the order of the District Forum with regard to joint and several liability of OP No.2, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited now appellant of First Appeal No.1495 of 2011. We make order of the District Forum clear on this point that complainant Jaswinder Singh shall be entitled to recover the compensation of Rs.70,633/- for actual loss of damage along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of actual loss till its payment from OP No.1 now appellant of First Appeal No.1638 of 2011. The order of the District Forum with addition of the interest part on the amount of compensation is hereby passed against OP No.1 now appellant of First Appeal No.1638 of 2011 and we dismiss the First Appeal No.1638 of 2011 filed by OP No.1 and the appellant of this appeal.

18.    In First Appeal No.1495 of 2011, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellant of this appeal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. In First Appeal No.1638 of 2011, the appellant had deposited Rs.25,000/- in this commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

19.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

20.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

23.    Copy of this order be placed in FA No.1638 of 2011.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                           (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)                                                                            MEMBER

 

March 18  2015.                                                                  

(ravi)