DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 107 of 14.3.2016
Decided on: 26.10.2017
Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh.Amarjeet Singh resident of village Mithu Majra, Tehsil & District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Surender Gas Service,SCR 31, SST Nagar, Opp. Gurudawara Singh Sabha, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Prop./Partner.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Regd. Office & Marketing Division Head Office-Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra €,Mumbai-400 051 through its M.D.
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O. Sai Market, Patiala (Insurer of Res. No.1) through its Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Kahlon,Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh.N.K.Gupta,Adv. counsel for Op No.1.
Sh.C.S.Kwatra, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Adv. counsel for Op No.3.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gurpreet Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the claim amount of Rs.1,92,000/-alongwith interest @12% per annum w.e.f.17.11.2013
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith suitable compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
-
-
In the written version filed by Op no.2, it is stated that there is no privity of contract with the complainant. It is admitted to the extent that OP no.1 is its distributor and as pe agreement entered into between OP no.1 and Indian Oil Corporation- OP No.2, the Distributor- OP no.1 shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent or on account of India Oil Corporation and this OP no.2 shall not be liable in any manner in respect of any act or omission on the part of the Distributor. It is stated that OP no.1 is insured against such losseswith OP no.3 and the matter has already been settled between the complainant and OP no.1 and OP no.2 has been impleaded unnecessarily. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the written version, filed by Op No.3, it is stated that on receipt of intimation about the incidence from OP no.1, Sh.Deepak Malhotra, surveyor and loss assessor was deputed to assess the loss who vide his report dated 21.3.2014, assessed the same to the tune of Rs.78,500/-. It is stated that its liability exists only during installation of cylinder in customer house or while such cylinders are being carried from the premises of the insured to the customer premises. But in the present case, cylinder was got blast in the night at customer house which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the claim of the complainant was filed as “No claim”.OP no.1 was also intimated vide letter dated 26.6.2014 that under public liability section VI(a) LPG Package Policy, “the company will indemnify the insured in respect of all the sums which the insured is legally liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses insured by the insured with the written consent of the company”. Hence claim could be paid to OP no.1 only once the liability is ascertained by the court.The complainant is not entitled for any compensation or any interest. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
-
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatender Gupta, Partner of Surender Gas Service, Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.B.R.Rang, Dr.Manager/LPG Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patiala, Ex.OPC alongwith documents Exs.OP10 to OP11 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.3 has tendered in evidence in evidence affidavit of Smt.Madhu Kaul Tickoo,Dy.Manager Ex.OPC, alongwith documents Exs.OP6 to OP-9and closed the evidence. OP no.3 has also tendered Ex.OP12 surveyor report by way of additional evidence.
-
-
7. From the perusal of consent letter dated 22.3.2014,Ex.OP1, which bears the signature of the complainant Sh.Gurpreet Singh and his father Sh.Amarjeet Singh, it is evident that the complainant agreed to accept an amount of Rs.77000/- as full and final settlement of his claim. The complainant has alleged that the Ops forced him to accept the amount of Rs.77000/- as full and final settlement of the claim and compelled him to give the consent letter but has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove this fact. It may be stated that once the complainant has signed the consent letter,Ex.OP1, after receipt of the amount of Rs.77000/- as full and final settlement of his claim, then he has no occasion to file the present complaint. In the case of Eggro Paper Moulds Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1(2016) CPJ 404 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “Matter finally stands settled between parties and Commission has no power to interfere with that settlement” .
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:26.10. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
