BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Friday, the 15th day of May, 2009
CC.No.11 of 2008
Between:
1. R. Venkatesham, S/o Laxmirajyam aged 37 years
Occ: Business
2. Uppala Thopaiah S/o Viswanatham aged 50 years
Caste: Vyasya Occ: Business
3. Uppala Srilatha W/o Thopaiah aged 45 years
Occ: Household
Both R/o 2-151, Prashanthnagar,
Waddera Colony, Siddipet.
… Complainants
And
1. Sri M. Gopal Proprietor M/s Srinivas Enterprises,
HP Gas Door No. 6-46, Plot No. 1, Indiranagar, Medak Road,
Siddipet – 502103, Medak District, AP.
2. The Deputy Manager (LPG) Hindustan Petroleum Co., Ltd.,
Chandralok, Ist floor, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad.
3. The Manager (Unit Officer) The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,
2-11-90/2, Weekly Market Road, Kamareddy – 503110.
Nizamabad Dist.
4. The General Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
New India Assurance Building 87,
M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai, PO Mumbai.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 13.04.2009 in the presence of Sri. G. Hanumanth Reddy, advocate for complainants, Sri N. Sai Baba, advocate for opposite party No. 1, Sri R. Ravinder Reddy, advocate for opposite party No. 2 and Sri. P. Bal Reddy, advocate for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, upon hearing arguments on both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
-2-
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an award for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants 2 and 3 with interest at 12% and costs.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1) Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are co-brothers and complainant No. 3 is wife of complainant No.2. They used to reside in a rented house bearing No.12-3-137/2 at Narsapur of Siddipet. Later they have shifted their residence to the newly constructed house of complainant No.1 bearing door No. 2-151which is situated in Prashathnagar Grampanchyath of Siddipet. Opposite party No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s Srinivasa Enterprises and dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited for LPG connections. Opposite party No. 2 is controlling authority of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are doing business of LPG Gas cylinders in Siddipet. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are insurance company which issued policy bearing No.6106605/46/86/22/0000019 valid from 26.09.2006 to 25.09.2007 covering the risk of opposite party No.1.
2) Opposite party No.1 has given gas connection vide consumer No. 608618 for domestic cooking. Opposite party No. 1 supplied a cylinder to the complainants on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours. When the complainants 2 and 3 are trying to fix regulator to the cylinder, the gas came out immediately from the cylinder due to which the electric bulb in the kitchen was broken and there upon the complainants caught fire. Fire service people put off the flames. Because of the accident the tiles in the kitchen are broken and all articles including electrical wiring were damaged.
3) Immediately after the accident the complainants were shifted to Siddipet hospital and from there to Gandhi hospital, where they were treated as inpatients from 31.10.2006 to 06.11.2006. Both the claimants sustained burns over 30% of their bodies, on their faces, limbs and other parts of the body, due to which they are unable to do any work even after the injuries are healed. Complainant No. 1
-3-
used to do business in paddy on commission basis and get about Rs.5,000/- per month. Complainant No. 2 is house wife who used to look after all family affairs. From the date of accident the complainants are not able to do any work. Complainant No. 1 forcibly stopped his business as his health is not co-operating as such they became dependents on others. Their children are studying intermediate second year and tenth class, as such the complainants are put to financial crisis and mental shock because of the accident.
4) The complainants incurred Rs.30,000/- when they were in the hospital. After discharge also they have been taking medicines on the advise of doctors.
5) The complainants immediately informed the accident, due to leakage of gas, to opposite party No. 1, as gas cylinder was supplied by opposite party No. 1. In turn opposite party No. 1 informed the same to opposite party No. 3 through their letter dt 18.01.2007 and requested to pay compensation, as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 issued policy covering the risk of opposite party No. 1. As opposite parties No. 1 and 2 supplied defective gas cylinder to the complainants family and as it caught fire due to leakage of gas and as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 issued policy covering the risk, all the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
6) The accident occurred on 30.10.2006 at prashanthinagar, Siddipet . The complainants are therefore seeking an award for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to complainants 2 and 3. Hence the complaint.
7) The claim is resisted by the opposite parties by filing counters.
The counter of opposite party No. 1 in brief is as follows:
The complainants failed to fix the regulator to the cylinder properly and because of their own mistake the accident took place. At the time of fixing regulator to gas cylinder they have failed to take all precautions as per the instructions of the gas company. Leaking gas cylinder was never supplied to the complainants, therefore payment of compensation to the complainants does not arise. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
-4-
8) The counter of opposite party No. 2, in the form of affidavit, in brief is as follows:
The complainants are not consumers of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 appoints dealers for enrolling customers for supply of LPG cylinders to them, on principal to principal basis. In the present case also opposite party No. 1 was appointed as dealer of opposite party No. 2. After opposite party No. 1 was granted dealer ship it has enrolled the first complainant as its customer. The relationship between opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is governed by terms and conditions of dealership agreement signed by them and it is in between them. The dealer is required to indemnify the corporation against any claim as per the said agreement. As the first complainant is having domestic gas connection bearing consumer No. 608618 from opposite party No. 1, there is no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No. 2, so the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No. 2 and hence it is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No. 1 has taken insurance policy covering the risk, as such complaint against opposite party No. 2 has to be dismissed. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 has no information of the accident. Had the accident was informed to opposite party No. 2, immediately the matter would have been investigated by its experts. The alleged accident and injuries are to complainants 2 and 3, therefore there is no necessity for first complainant to stop business. Even otherwise it is denied that the complainants are unable to do any work. All these allegations are pressed into service to prepare a ground for claiming compensation. It is denied that the complainants incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and that they are continuing medicines. It is false to alleged in para 6 of the complaint that opposite party No. 2 supplied a defective cylinder. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. As already stated above the complainants are not consumers of opposite party No. 2 and there is no privity of contract between them. Hence the complainants are not entitled to any amount from opposite party No. 2 . The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
9). The counter of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in brief is as follows:
-5-
It is not admitted that complainant No. 1 is consumer of gas connection and that he is a resident in the house number given in the complainant. Actually complainant No. 1 is residing in Vemulawada. The complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are in no way concerned with the gas connection of first complainant or its use. Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are not related to complainant No. 1. Cylinder was filling with care and caution at the filling plant with the entire process of technical staff and in built checks, counter checks and cross checks regarding quality, quantity and safety. Hence the question of leakage of gas from the cylinder does not arise. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the installation of gas cylinder must be by the authorized agent, but in the instant case the complainants Nos. 2 and 3 themselves have installed the regulator to the cylinder and due to their fault only the accident occurred. There is no coverage for the benefits to the customers. In any case opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants as the complainants themselves are at fault and as the incident took place at their instance. The claim of Rs.5,00,000/- compensation is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and out of all proportions. The complainants are not entitled to any amount. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
10) Evidence affidavit of second complainant is filed to prove the contents of the complaint, on behalf of other complainants also. Opposite parties have not filed any affidavits to prove the contents of their respective counters. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Ex. B1 is marked on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and B2 is marked on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are filed. On behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2 no written arguments are filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
11) The point for consideration is whether the complainants 3 and 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as claimed in the complaint?
-6-
Point:
12) It is the case of the complainants that all of them reside under one roof in the house of the 1st complainant bearing door No.2-151 and gas connection No. 608618 was given by opposite party No. 1 for domestic purpose and on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours gas cylinder was supplied to them by opposite party No. 1 and when complainants 2 and 3 were trying to fix regulator to the cylinder at about 7:00 A.M., because of leakage of gas from the cylinder, the cylinder was burst as the gas caught fire and both of them sustained burn injuries 30% over their bodies and all the articles in the kitchen are damaged and they have taken treatment as in patients in Gandhi hospital from 31.10.2006 to 06.11.2007, for a period of one week and during the said period they have spent about Rs.30,000/- and even after discharge, they have been taking medicines on the advise of doctors; therefore they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against all the opposite parties.
13) None of the documents marked on behalf of the complainants as exhibits, convincingly prove their place of residence. Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of mediators report of scene of offence, conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Siddipet, I town police station. It does not contain the crime number in which the panchayath was held during the course of investigation. It does not even contain General Diary entry number, if crime is not registered by the time of conducting of panchanama. According to the complainants No. 2 and 3, the incident took place on 30.10.2006 at about 7:00 A.M. Exs. A4 and A6 show that the date of incident is 31.10.06 at 4:30 P.M. It is not known which version is correct. The panchanama covered by Ex. A1 is on 07.03.2007 at 4:00 P.M. i.e. more than four months one week after the alleged incident. On a reading of Ex. A1 it is understood that the incident occurred at the house of complainant No. 2 bearing house No. 2-151. The name of the first complainant is not seen any where in Ex. A1. He is not even a witness for the alleged panchanama.
14) Ex. A2 bears Xerox copies of two certificates, one issued by Panchayat Secretary of Pprashathnagar Gram Pachayat and the other by Fire Office, Siddipet. The certificate of Panchayat secretary is dt 03.02.2007 i.e. more than three months after the alleged incident. The said certificate does not contain the date of incident at all. This certificate shows that the residence of second complainant is in house No.
-7-
2-151 but the certificate does not show that the said house belongs to the first complainant.
15) The other certificate in Ex. A2 by the fire office is dt.14.12.2006 i.e. about more than one and half month after the alleged incident, also shows that the house bearing No. 2-151 is that of the second complainant. Even the news paper information covered by Ex. A5 does not show that the house in which the incident alleged to have taken place belongs to the first complainant.
16) No where in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of the second complainant, it is stated in whose name the gas connection was given. According to the opposite parties the gas connection was in the name of complainant No. 1 and infact he does not reside along with the complainants 2 and 3. It is stated by opposite party No. 3 and 4 that the first complainant resides in Vemulawada in Karimnagar District. The complainants have not produced the gas connection card at least to prove that the gas cylinder which was alleged to have been leaking at the time of fixing the regulator, was supplied by opposite party No. 1 for complainant No. 1. There is no proof that the cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 was for consumer No. 608618 of complainant No. 1 and it was operated by complainant Nos. 2 and 3 and it was burst. There is also no proof that when the gas was booked and when it was supplied. The averments in para 3 of the complaint that opposite party No. 1 supplied gas cylinder on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours (time of accident is at about 7:00 A.M. on 30.10.2006) cannot be believed to be correct,because by that time normally the office of opposite party No. 1 will not be opened. On a reading of the complaint as a whole, the complainants intended to say that the accident was on 30.10.2006 at about 7:00 A.M. and the cylinder was supplied earlier there to. Exs.A4&A6, which are case record books of complainants 2&3 maintained by Gandhi hospital doctor for admission, discharge and treatment given to them, show that the incident ie. fire accident took place on 31-10-2006 at 7-07AM.
17) Even the evidence affidavit of 1st complainant is not filed to prove the contents in the complaint that he has been residing along with complainant Nos. 2 and 3 in his house and the accident occurred at the time of fixing regulator to the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 for his gas connection. Except finding
-8-
signature, purported to be of the first complainant, in the complaint there is no other material before this forum to show that first complainant has at least knowledge of filing this complaint. The first complainant has not participated in the enquiry of this case, nor turned up to the forum at any time, even though the matter has been pending since more than one year.
18). As the gas connection does not stand in the name of either complainant No. 2 or complainant No. 3, as there is no satisfactory proof to show that they were residing with complainant No. 1 in his house and used the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 to the connection of complainant No. 1 and as the complainant No. 1 has not given any evidence affidavit before this forum in support of any of the averments in the complaint, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3, in whose favour award is sought, for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, cannot to be said to be consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such there is no consumer dispute before this forum in this complaint and hence the relief sought for in the complaint cannot be granted. If the contentions of the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are true and correct regarding the incident, their remedy is elsewhere but not in this forum, as they are not consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The point is answered against the complainants.
19). In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 15th day of May, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
