BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No. 329 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:20.11.2017.
Date of Decision: 28.02 .2019
Ved Parkash son of Jogi ram, resident of Village Baliawala, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
- M/s Mukul Gas Agency, Damkora Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Manager.
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG Bottling Plant Dhansu Road, Hisar through its Authorized Signatory.
..Opposite Parties/ Respondents.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh. Naresh Sachdeva, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. C.D. Singla, Advocate for the OP no. 1.
Sh. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the OP no. 2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is consumer of OP no. 1 vide gas connection no. 62448068 and he is having two LPG Cylinders on the abovesaid connection and after finishing of one LPG Cylinder the complainant has been taking the delivery of another LPG Cylinder from OP no. 1. The OP no. 1 has been taking the delivery of LPG Cylinders from OP no. 2 and as such the complainant is consumer of the OP no. 2 also.
2. It is further submitted that in the month of March 2016, the OP no. 1 supplied to the complainant a duly filled LPG Cylinder and at the time of supply of the above Gas Cylinder the complainant was assured that the same was correct and OK in all respects and there was no leakage etc. in the same.
3. It is further submitted that on 2.4.2016 when the already installed Gas Cylinder got finished and wife of the complainant namely, Smt. Darshana Devi installed another LPG Cylinder and was preparing tea and when the gas stove was put on then the fire broke out there and the same caught the LPG Cylinder. It is also submitted that the abovesaid Gas Connection was released on 29.11.2014 and all the apparatus to the complainant were supplied by the Ops alongwith the Gas Cylinder.
4. It is further submitted that on account of the occurrence the wife of the complainant cried for help and threw the LPG Gas Cylinder out of the kitchen and the blast took place and the cracks developed in the wall of the house of the complainant and the hand of the Darshana Devi got burnt. It is further submitted that on account of leakage in the Gas Cylinder the wife of the complainant suffered injuries and financial loss was also suffered by the complainant. Since the OP no. 1 did not take care before supplying the LPG Cylinder and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
5. It is further submitted that the matter was reported to the concerned police station and DDR no. 25 dated 4.4.2016 was recorded in Police Station Sadar Tohana. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 8.5.2016 to the Ops to compensate to him but the Ops did not file reply to the said notice.
6. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency and as such the Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 8 lakh to the complainant as compensation.
7. OP no. 1 appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, false and frivolous etc. have been raised.
8. In reply on merits, it is submitted that no gas agency in the name and style of M/s Mukul Gas Agency is in existence at Tohana and as such the question of complainant being a consumer of the said gas agency does not arise. It is further submitted that in view of the version of the complainant regarding the occurrence, it is crystal clear that the alleged occurrence had occurred due to carelessness and negligence of Smt. Darshana wife of the complainant as according to the complainant the gas cylinder was changed by his wife and thereafter she started preparing tea and a gas stove was put on then the fire broke out there and the same caught the LPG Cylinder. In other words Smt. Darshana failed to install the cylinder in a correct method. It is further submitted that if there would have been any manufacturing defect in the cylinder or in the re-filling of gas cylinder then there would have been prior leakage in the gas cylinder and it could have come into the notice of the wife of the complainant prior to its change. It is also further submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that if a LP Gas Cylinder having LPG in full capacity and in that eventuality if it is burst in those circumstances there will be a great deep pit underneath the LPG Cylinder and the pieces of the cylinder would scatter with high velocity hither and thither and there would be a great noise and loss to person and property. The complainant has not produced the burst cylinder alongwith complaint which is in violation of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also further submitted that a DDR no. 25 dated 4.4.2016 was recorded by the complainant in PS Sadar Tohana. However, the version of that application is quite contrary to the contents of the complaint. It is denied in the written statement that the leakage in the LP Gas Cylinder was on account of negligence and carelessness on the part of Ops and there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops in any manner. It is further submitted that the present complaint is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. OP no. 2 also filed written statement and resisted the complaint by taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. have been raised.
10. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the consumer had booked his refill on 20.2.2016 and the same was delivered to him on 29.2.2016. After this, no cylinder was delivered to the consumer by M/s Mukul Gas Service till 2.4.2016 i.e. the date on which the accident took place. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that OP no. 1 supplied cylinder to the complainant in the month of March 2016. It is further submitted that the refill cylinders are delivered by the Distributors of the Corporation to the consumers after carrying out the Pre Delivery Inspection in front of the consumers or their representative. It is further submitted that the accident happened when the consumer’s wife was trying to change the cylinder on 2.4.2016 i.e. after 33 days of the cylinder having been delivered to the consumer. Had there been a defect in the cylinder, the leakage would have taken place much earlier as the cylinder was lying in the consumer’s house for 33 days.
11. It is further submitted that in case the version of the complainant is considered, it is very clear that the occurrence had taken place due to carelessness and negligence of Smt. Darshana Devi wife of the complainant as Smt. Darshana failed to install the cylinder in a correct method or the leakage might have taken place on account of sub-standard rubber tube which was in use at the time of accident. In case there would have been any manufacturing defect in the cylinder then there would have been prior leakage in the gas cylinder and it could have been known by the wife of the complainant prior to change of the gas cylinder.
12. It is also submitted that no notice was ever issued by the complainant to the answering OP. It is also submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant in the present matter and the same is devoid of merits and as such liable to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit C-1 and the affidavit of Kuldeep Singh son of Suresh Kumar as Exhibit C-2 wherein the averments made in the complaint has been affirmed. The learned counsel for the complainant also tendered in evidence the documents as Exhibit C-3 to Exhibit C-17 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mahavir Parshad in evidence as Exhibit R-1.
14. It is the case of the complainant that connection of LPG has been issued to the complainant by the OP no. 1 and on the abovesaid connection two LPG Cylinder has been issued. The OP no. 1 has been taking the delivery of above Cylinder from OP no. 2 and as such the complainant is consumer of both the Ops. It is further the case of the complainant that in the month of March 2016, the OP no. 1 supplied him duly filled LP Gas Cylinder and at that time he was assured that the same was correct and OK in all respects and there is no leakage etc. in the same. It is further the case of the complainant that on 2.4.2016 when the already installed LP Gas Cylinder got finished and wife of the complainant installed the another Gas Cylinder supplied by the Ops and started preparing tea and the gas stove was put on at that time the fire broke out and the same caught the LPG Cylinder. It is also the case of the complainant that the abovesaid connection was released on 29.11.2014 and all the apparatus were supplied by the Ops alongwith the gas connection. It is also the case of the complainant that when the accident took place the wife of the complainant threw the LP Gas Cylinder out of the kitchen and then suddenly blast took place and the cracks developed in the wall of the house of the complainant and hand of the wife of the complainant also got burnt. It is the case of the complainant that the accident had taken place on account of negligence/deficiency on the part of Ops as the OP no. 1 before supplying the LP Gas Cylinder did not take care to check the same.
15. In support of its case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit C-1 wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. One Sh. Kuldeep Singh son of Suresh Kumar, resident of village Baliawla and also tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit C-2 in support of the case of the complainant submitting therein that he is eye witness of the occurrence. The complainant in support of its case also placed on record gas connection issued to him by the Ops as Exhibit C-3, legal notice issued to the Ops as Exhibit C-4 and copy of ration card as Exhibit C-5. The complainant also placed on record copy of the DDR No. 25 dated 4.4.2016 recorded by the complainant in the police station Sadar Tohana as Exhibit C-6. The complainant also placed on record photographs of the occurrence as Exhibit C-7 to Exhibit C-17.
16. On the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that the alleged occurrence had taken place on account of carelessness and negligence of Smt. Darshana wife of the complainant as according to complainant himself the gas cylinder was changed by his wife Smt. Darshana when the gas stove was put on the fire broke out and the same caught the LPG cylinder meaning thereby Smt. Darshana failed to install the cylinder in a correct method. It is further the case of the Ops that in case there would have been manufacturing defect in the cylinder or in refilling of the cylinder then there would have been prior leakage in the gas cylinder and it could have been noticed by the wife of the complainant. Moreover, it is matter of common knowledge that if a LP Gas Cylinder having LP Gas in its full capacity and in that eventuality if it is burst in those circumstances it will have very severe impact and cause a deep pit underneath the gas cylinder. It is also the case of the Ops that version of the complainant in the present complaint is contrary to the contents of the DDR recorded by him in Police Station. It is also the case of the Ops that there is no deficiency on their part in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also duly perused the documents placed on record. In view of the position as discussed above, the core issue to be decided by this Forum in the present case is as to whether the LP Gas Cylinder supplied to the complainant by OP no. 1 was defective/sub-standard or the same was having leakage and on account of the same the blast had occurred in the gas cylinder. To prove the issue that the gas cylinder in question was defective or having leakage and the accident had occurred on account of the same the complainant has placed on record photographs of the place of occurrence, copy of the DDR got recorded before the P.S. Sadar Tohana, affidavit of the complainant and of one eye witness. From the aforesaid evidence it can maximum be held that accident/occurrence had taken place. But the evidence produced by the complainant is not sufficient to conclude that the accident had taken place on account of any defect in the cylinder or the same was having leakage of gas. The complainant has not produced any cogent, convincing or credible evidence to prove that the cylinder supplied to him was defective and occurrence had taken place on account of defectiveness of the cylinder or leakage of gas in the same. The cause of accident has not been got investigated at the spot of accident by the expert or engineer of the petroleum company. Moreover from perusal of the record, it is revealed that no intimation was given by the complainant to the Ops regarding the occurrence. In absence of the same the Ops have been deprived to get the matter investigated by the expert or engineer of the company to ascertain the cause of accident as to whether the same has occurred on account of any defect in the cylinder or other appliances supplied by the Ops or on account of mishandling by the wife of the complainant while replacing the gas cylinder or a sub-standard gas pipe was used by the consumer.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.28.02.2019.
.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Rajni Goyat) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
.
