District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 445/2020.
Date of Institution:26.11.2020.
Date of Order:15.05.2023.
1. Sudarshan Kumar son of Sh. Milap Chand.
2. Ms. Pooja D/o sh. Sudershan Kumar both R/o House No. P-358, SGm Nagar, Faridabad.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. M/s. Allied Gas Agency, 3-C/64, B.P. NH-3, NIT, Faridabad. through its Proprietor.
2. HP Customer Service Cell, HPCL, Jind LPG RO. Box No.5, Rohtak Road, Jind, Haryana – 126102 through its Manager.
3. Hindustan Petroleum Limited (A Government of India Enterprise) Hindustan Bhawan, 8, S.V.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001, Maharashtra through its Managing Director/Director.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Ms. Shikha, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 given up vide order dated 20.12.2022.
Sh. S.M.Maheshwari , counsel for opposite parties Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the wife of the complainant Sh. Sudershan Kumar namely Smt. Kamlesh Kumari was expired due to blast in gas cylinder due to rash and negligent act and conduct of the opposite parties. At the time of death of late Smt. Kamlesh Kumari on 25.05.1989, now deceased, the complainant Sh. Sudershan Kumar was surviving by doing labour work and the age of the complainant namely Ms. Pooja was 6 years at the time of death of her mother. Now the complainant Sudershan Kumar became old aged about 72 years and the daughter Pooja was married woman and they disclosed their need and necessity to some social activity, who after enquiry came to notice that the complainants were entitled for the relief of compensation from the opposite parties but they could not receive any compensation from the opposite parties. The complainants several times made a representation to the opposite parties but all in vain and opposite parties had not paid a single penny on account compensation. The complainant sent legal notice dated 31.10.2020 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainants.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Ms. Shikha, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he gives up opposite party No.1 being unnecessary party. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 was given up vide order dated 20.12.2022.
3. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering opposite parties were involved in the bottling, supply and distribution of L:PG gas cylinders for domestic, commercial and industrial purposes. For this purpose, they appointed dealers/distributors to reach the consumers. Opposite party No.1 was appointed as LPG Distributor vide agreement dated 03.03.2004. However, it was relevant to mention that said distributor was already terminated by answering opposite party vide termination letter dated 27.05.2014. Furthermore clauses 18 of the dealership agreement provides that the dealer should act as principal in matters of sale, distribution, installation or connections of LPG cylinder and that the appellants should not be liable for any act or omission on the part of the dealer. The complainant had concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Court and placed wrong and incorrect facts before the Hon’ble Court, so the complainants were not entitled for any relief. The present complaint had been filed by the complainants with the malafide intentions just to grab money from the answering opposite parties which the complainants had no right to do so. Opposite party stated that the alleged incident occurred on 25.10.1989 and since 1990 none of the complainants approached the answering opposite parties for any sort of help. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. Allied Gas Agency etc. with the prayer to: a) pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainants. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW2/A – affidavit of Pooja D/o Shri Sudershan Kumar, Ex.C-1 – voter card, Ex.C-2 identity card of Sudershan Kumar, Ex.C-3 – adhaar card of Pooja Rani, Ex.C-4 – Report,, Ex.C-5 - death certificate,, Ex.C-6 – Form of death certificate, Ex.C-7 – affidavit of Sudarshan Kumar, Ex.C-8 – data regarding of supplying distributor,, Ex.C-9 – gas copy, Ex.C-10 –affidavit of Sudarshan Sharma,, Ex.C-11 – discharge slip, Ex.C-12 – RTA letter dated 09.03.2020, Ex.C-13 - public liability insurance policies for accidents involving LPG, Ex.C-14 – list of distributors, Ex.C-15 – letter dated 5.3.1990, Ex.C-16 to 18 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-19 – legal notice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Gupta General Power of Attorney holder of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., having its regd. Office at: 3rd floor, UCO Bank Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
6. As per dictum of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, the District Commission is empowered to admit a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The present complaint is time barred under Limitation Act as the alleged theft had taken place on 25.10.1989 whereas the complaint had been filed in the year 2020 i,e 26.11.2020 after expiry of 11 years.
7. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being time barred. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 15.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
