::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::

   C.C. No.22/2019.

                                                Date of filing: 07.06.2019.

                                                       Date of disposal:  17.12.2020.

P R E S E N Ts:-    

                                    (1) Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava,     

                                                                                B.Sc., M.A.,LL.M.,

                                                                                President.,  

                               (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                            B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                    Member.

                               (3) Kum. Kavita,

                                                    M.A.,LL.B.,  

                                                             Member.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                      ( By Shri.  Deshpande P.M., Advocate )   

                                                                       VERSUS

                       (   By Shri. Veershetty B., Advocate )

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By  Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava, President.

                    This complaint  filed by the above said complainant    ( U/sec.12 of C.P.Act., 1986 (Old)) U/s. 35  1 &2  of the C.P.Act., 2019,(New)  against the Respondents  alleging  deficiency in service  on the part of Respondents.  

2.          The complainant is native of village Gorchincholli,    Tq. Bhalki,Dist.Bidar.  The complainant stated in the complaint that he being an unemployment running Khanavali at Aurad (Shahjani) at Nilanga, Dist. Latur in a rented shop under the name and style as “Swamy Khanavali”.  According to the complainant Respondent No.1 is the dealer and supplier of Inane Gas Cylinder to the complainant and Respondent 2 is the insurance Company.  The Respondent No.1 has insured with the Respondent No.2 in regard to stock of Cylinders and package policy vide policy No. 6803014816100000008 commencing from 05.01.2017 to 04.01.2018.  According to the complainant on 27.03.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. the Gas Cylinder supplied by the Respondent No.1 got blasted due to electric short circuit and fire caused, the complainant suffered heavy losses in the Khanavali.  The Complainant further stated that he is the registered Consumer of Respondent No.1 vide Gas consumer No. 7042518660 and the said gas supplied by the Respondent No.1.   The Complainant informed the incident to the Respondents immediately after the incident took place and also informed the Police.  It is also stated that the surveyor  made survey after due enquiry and gave the report and made loss of assessment of stock and furniture of the                     complainant’s Khanavali to an extent of Rs.1,39,100/-.  It is also submitted that the incident was publish in Lokmat Marathi daily news paper.  The Khanavali/ Swamy Hotel totally gutted in fire.  So, he sustained the loss of Rs. 1,39,100/-.  The complainant stated that the claim loss and damage within the scope of the policy and the same is payable.  The complainant stated that the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company has disputed the claim on 01.01.2018 with vague grounds.  Therefore the complainant issued legal notice to Respondents.  The Respondents have not responded and therefore for the cause of action which is well within the jurisdiction of this Commission and also within the point of limitation.  The insurance also was in force on the date of fire incident.  Therefore the claim set up by the complainant for Rs. 1,39,100/- with interest @ 12.% p.a. from the date of incident till the payment.  The complainant also claimed compensatory cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the Respondents in the interest of justice and equity.

3.          The Respondents  have appeared by the same counsel and  together filed their written version.  In the written version of Respondents stated that the complaint filed by  the complainant not only false and concocted but  is a fraudulent and filed with ulterior motive to make a false claim for compensation.  The Respondents submitted that, the complainant is Consumer of Gas with Respondent No.1 for use in his premises at village Gorchincholi, Tq.Bhalki, which is within service area of Respondent No.1.  The Respondent further submitted as per records available the complainant illegally and unauthorisedly diverted the Gas Cylinder to use at Khanavali at Aurad Shahjani in Nilanga taluka of Latur district, Maharashtra which is beyond the service area of Respondent No.1.  It is also raised an objection that the complainant was not permitted to transport the Gas Cylinder from his residential house at Gorchincholi Tq.Bhalki to Aurad (Shahjani).  Therefore the complaint is not legally maintainable.  The Respondent No.2 Insurance Company further raised objection that the Gas Cylinder which is allegedly supplied by the Respondent No.1 is not to believe that the Gas Cylinder is belongs to Respondent No.1.  It is further stated on the date of incident the Khanavali got fire due to “ Electric Short Circuit” and fire broke out which caused bursting of Gas Cylinder .  It is also raised the dispute that the complainant does not make any allegation that the Gas Cylinder was defective and it was burst due to fire which caused due to electric short circuit.  The Complainant is not entitled to claim compensation due to short circuit  and burst of the Gas Cylinder.  It is also raised dispute that the complainant has not produced any record to show that he was running the Khanavali at Aurad (Shahjani) in Maharashtra.  The Respondent No.2 Insurance Company submitted that the stock of Gas Cylinder is insured with Respondent No.2 Company but, the policy does not cover any risk for any damage caused due to electric short circuit.  Respondent No.2 Insurance Company further submitted the incident took place in a place beyond the service area of Respondent No.1 and it took place due to short circuit and not due to any defective of Gas Cylinder.  The complainant’s claim is not based on any valid service report and it is beyond the insured service area of Respondent No.1.  Neither the incident of fire took place in the premises of Respondent No.1 nor at the time of transportation from the office/staff premises to the customer while empty Cylinders the claim is therefore not maintainable and same to be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.

4.         The complainant to prove his case has given by sworn affidavit and narrated all the grounds,  examined as P.W.1 and  filed documents exhibited Ex.P 1 to  P.12 and closed his side.

5.     The Respondents to prove their case have examined R.W.1 and R.W.2  and documents got exhibited Ex.R1 and R.2 and closed their side. 

 6.      Apart from Written Arguments the learned counsels appeared for complainant and Respondents also advanced arguments.

7.       We have heard from the both sides and perused the documents filed by the complainant carefully.

8.         Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case the following points arise for our consideration.

1.  Whether the complainant entitled to claim of Rs.1,39,100/- against the Respondents No.1 and 2 due to blast of  Gas Cylinder at his Khanavali  running in the name and style  : “Swamy Khanavali“ situated at Aurad (Shahjani) Tq.Nilanga Dist. Latur, Maharashtra wherein by short circuit so suffered loss of the Khanavali articles as claimed for deficiency of service against the Respondents?
2.  Whether the Respondent No.1 and 2 proved no insurance coverage arise to the complainant for any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint as a result complaint required to be dismissed?
3. What orders ?

9.       Our answers to the points raised above are as follows:-

1. In the Negative.
2. In the Affirmative.
3. As per the final order.

10.        The both points No.1 & 2 in consideration arise  out of the same facts and circumstances and therefore linked together and answered accordingly on the findings as therein below.

11.        The Complainant stated that he is the registered Consumer to Respondent No.1 vide Gas Consumer No.7042518660 and was regularly getting Gas Cylinder from  Respondent No.1- M/s Matosree Ausabai Indane  Grameen Vitarak Prop.Pandurang s/o Govind,      Tq. Basavakalyan Dist. Bidar.  The complainant admittedly stated that

 M/s Matosree Ausabai Proprietor Pandurang was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. arrayed herein as the Respondent No.2  the Respondent No.2 New India  Assurance Company has insured for all the stock of Cylinders with package policy vide policy No.6803014816100000008 commencing from 05.01.2017 to 04.01.2018.  The case of the complainant that the “ Swamy Khanavali”  to which said to have taken the Gas Cylinder being  Consumer of Gas agency of Respondent No.1 and with the help of Gas Cylinder of Respondent No.1 Tq.Basavakalyan, Dist.Bidar was running admittedly in the state of Maharashtra.  The Complainant stated that his Khanavali was gutted  fully and loss in the fire such as hotel’s  furniture, steel plates, glass, Refrigerator etc.  According to the survey report there was loss of Rs. 1,39,100/- which is his claim amount in the complaint being himself also insured to setup claim under the same coverage policy which is in between the Respondent No.1 and 2.   The complainant claim that his claim of insurance compensation denied by the Respondent No.2 on 01.01.2018.  Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to both Respondents but, Respondents did not response to his claims and so he knocked the doors of the Commission and produced documentary evidence.     The counsel of the complainant vehemently advanced arguments in regard to documentary evidence produced by the complainant from Ex.P.1 P.12.   The documents which he has filed under sworn affidavit of the complainant examined as P.W.1 also required description such as Ex.P.1 is a policy insurance between Respondent No.1 and 2 valid for a period from 05.01.2017 to 04.01.2018.  Further Ex.P.2 is a fire insurance claim form of Respondent No.1 and shown nature and cause of loss in respect of due to short circuit Gas Cylinder was blast and whole hotel and two other shops completely burnt said to have been submitted by the proprietor,  Pandurang.  The Complainant as per Ex.P.3 notarized stated the items of lost and valued Rs. 1,39,100/-.  Ex.P.4 to make a request to arrange a surveyor to arrange the survey for Respondent No.1 Indane Grameen Vitaraka at Hulsoor, Tq. Basavakalyan, Dsit.Bidar.  The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 disputed about the Ex.P.4 so as to call it as transaction only between Respondent No.1 and 2 and raised the doubt about getting it’s copy by the complainant.   Ex.P.5, & P.6 about survey report,  payment and survey fees bill.  The learned counsel of the Respondents                                                                                                                                                                                         also disputed about the survey report of Ex.P.5 and P.6 not at the behest of the Respondent No.2 New India Assurance Company on the request of complainant.  Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 is only of transactional correspondence wherein the New India Assurance Company submitted Respondent No.2 has made clear that the loss relating to the case of the complainant does not come under the purview of public liability loss.  It is Ex.P.12 the legal notice issued by complainant to Respondent No.1 and 2 against the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence ground raised in the Written Version as such total denial by Respondent No.1 and 2 about to compensate the claim of complainant.  The Respondent No.1 and 2 in the Written Statement which are also supported by the authorized officer A.Y.E. Prasad about the contents of the Written Statement and more importantly the oral evidence of proprietor Pandurang S/o Govind M/s Matosree Ausabai , Basavakalyan wherein he has raised that the complainant himself as alleged that the incident took place in the place  beyond service area of Respondent No.1 and insured which took place the damage of  Khanavali items as per the say of the complainant is due to short circuit and not due to any defect in the Gas Cylinder.   R.W.1 in fact stated the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no any insured policy to give coverage for the loss of damage of fire.  When  admittedly as per the contents of the complainant so called Khanavala business not running in the state of place of jurisdiction of stated of Karnataka but, out side the limits and  was in the state of Maharashtra as argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2.  This apart the authorized officer of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company also examined by sworn affidavit as R.W.2 and denied all the contents of the complaint wholly on the ground that the insurance coverage is given only to Respondent No.1 in regard to stock of cylinders and the liability of Respondent No.2 insurance Company will arise only when the Gas Cylinders pertaining to Respondent No.1 proprietorship in the course of    transportation at the address and register  the consumer as like in the case of complainant for any reasons gas burst or caused loss to the damage to the property only then the liability will arise of Respondent No.2.  The Respondent No.2 got marked the policy schedule as per Ex.R.1 and also Ex.R.2 wherein in detail discussed about Multi Perils Insurance Policy For Liquified Petrolium Gas Dealers  the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 emphasize the relevant para in Ex.R.2 under section 7 in regard to public  Liability as reproduced from Ex.R.2.

 “ The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured at the company’s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the insured’s service and insured’s family members and / of accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured’s customers to the insured’s premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Any One accident as specified in the schedule for any one accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event an Any one year limit (as stated in t he schedule) for all accidents during any one period of insurance and also whilst lying at the insured’s premises specified in the schedule”.

 12.         It is in view of oral and documentary evidence from the complainant and Respondents’ side on appreciation of evidence and also the only the moot point is that the registered owner Consumer complaint bearing his vide consumer No. 7042518660 restricted for any service within the limits of his resident  village  Gorchincholli,    Tq. Bhalki.  But in this case the complainant admittedly running Khanavali shop  at Aurad (Shahjani) Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Lature in rented shop under the name and style as “ Swamy Khanavali “ at Aurad (Shahjani) Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Lature which is admittedly situated in the state of Maharashtra .  The Respondent No.1 and 2 by their evidence and documentary evidence based on Ex.R.1 and R.2 policy coverage with rules and regulation unable to provide service out of reach or beyond the limits of service area of Hulsoor jurisdiction situated at Bidar District.  It is also not made clear whether the Cylinder supplied by Respondent No.1 to the complainant  to it’s Consumer number is for domestic/residential purpose or the commercial purpose to the complainant.  There is want of evidence in this matter from the complainant.  When the complainant claimed a loss which is not covered under the insurance coverage of Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and not only that the documents produced by the complainant only relating to the insurance coverage given by Respondent No.2  to Respondent No.1 pertaining the stock and transportation.  In this case the Khanavali burnt down with the articles are not within the service limits of Respondent No.1.  The complainant’s case is that there was short circuit  and the Gas Cylinder burst and Khanavali  articles  damaged due to fire.  The Respondent No.2 also stated the fire incident did not take place in the premises of the insured customer or while such Cylinders for the consumers taken from the insured’s  premises or in the course of being carried for installation to the premises of the  insured customers or whilst such empty Cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premise of the insured customers to the insured premise, his claims is not maintainable accordingly the same is repudiated rightly. 

13        The learned counsel for  the Respondent no.1 & 2 vehemently argued the  complainant was not permitted to illegally transport the Gas Cylider from his residential house of Gorchincholli, Tq. Bhalki to Aurad (Shahjani) situated in the Maharashtra.   It is also pointed out in the course of arguments that there is no complaint from the complainant that the distributed Gas Cylinder was defective and it was burst.  The alleged Gas Cylinder is burst due to electric short circuit and that to at so called Khanavali at Aurad (Shahjani) in Maharashtra which is beyond the service limits of Respondent No.1 and 2 under the insurance policy i.e. between Respondent No. 1 and 2.  The complainant has produced the only the documents the insurance coverage given to Respondent No.1 and 2.  The survey report is also not reliable in this case as per Ex.P.6 because, the complainant’s Advocate very much relied but, it is not supported in his arguments that by whom the license  surveyor  has been appointed to survey.    It has also come as per Ex.P.6 if it is read carefully and to produce the same actually the short circuit was occurred in the neighboring shop named Jai Maharashtra Garage  and it  spread over and  later fire  caused to Khanavali of the complainant.

14.        Thus,  in view of above discussion one thing became clear that there was no permission for the complainant to take the Cylinder beyond the service area of Respondent No.1 and also the short circuit which caused at  Jai Maharashtra garage which spread to the Khanavali of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant failed to show deficiency of service but, the burst of Gas Cylinder against the Respondent No.1 and 2 by any evidence for which the point No.1 is order in the negative .  Whereas the Respondent No.1 and 2 have discharged the burden of illegal transportation of Gas Cylinder by himself by complainant to beyond the service area of Respondent No.1 and therefore the Respondents have successfully proved the point No.2 against the complainant hence, the point No.2 answered in the affirmative.  Hence for the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:   

                                                ::ORDERS::

          The complaint filed by the complainant ( U/s. 12 of C.P.Act,1986 (Old) )  U/s. 35  1 &2  of the C.P.Act., 2019 (New), against Respondents is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Intimate the parties accordingly.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  17^th day of  December- 2020).

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Ex.P.1- Copy of policy schedule for multi perils for LPG Dealers Policy.  
2. Ex.P.2 –Copy of Fire Insurance Claim Form.
3. Ex.P.3-Copy of Loss assessment of Stock & Furniture.  
4. Ex.P.4-Copy of request letter to arrange survey in LPG dealers policy by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5. Ex.P.5-Copy of Survey Fees Bill.    
6. Ex.P.6-Copy of Fire Survey Report by Chandrahsekhar Patil.   
7. Ex.P.7- Copy of letter by the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. to Bidar Branch.
8. Ex.P.8 – Copy of Approval/Reudiation of claim.  
9. Ex.P.9- Copy of letter addressed to Repondent No.1 by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
10. Ex.P.10 & 11-  DTDC Courier receipts (2)
11. Ex.P.12- Copy of legal notice Addressed to the Respondents by the complainant’s counsel.  

Document produced by the Respondents.

1. Ex.R.1- Copy of policy schedule for multi perils for LPG Dealers Policy. 
2. Ex.R.2- Copy of Policy General conditions.

Witness examined.

Complainant:

1. P.W.1- Kumar, s/o Snagayya swamy (Complainant ).

Resondents:

1. R.W.1- Pandurang, s/o Govind ( Respondent No.1 )
2. R.W.2- A.Y.E. Prasad ( Respondent No.2)