Delhi

New Delhi

CC/691/2010

Naseeb Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

    Case No.C.C./691/2010                                                                  Dated:

     IN THE MATTER OF:

Naseeb Kaur,

1637/117, Tri Nagar,

Delhi.

                    ………Complainant

Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation,

World Trade Centre,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-01.

 

 

2. M/s Keerti Gas Service,

Through Sh. S.B. Rajouria(Prop.)

And Sh. Govind, Incharge Manager,

3767, Kanhiya Nagar,

1^st Floor, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35

 

    ……………Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA , PRESIDENT

O R D E R

 

The gist of the complaint is that on 6.2.2010 the  complainant brought the cylinder in the kitchen in order to connect it with the burner.  She removed the cap of the cylinder suddenly  the gas leak from the cylinder and started oozing out as if it was a shower of liquid gas.  As the complainant and other family members started runing out of the house, a blast in the form of ball of fire in air occurred and the glasses of the window of the kitchen was set on fire.  The complainant and his family members sustained several burnt,  the written complaint regarding aforesaid incident was given to the concerned P.S. on 8.2.2010.   The leakage in the gas cylinder was entirely because of the defect in gas cylinder and as such both the OP-1 & 2 are liable to compensate the loss sustained by her.  A legal notice dt. 25.3.2010 was sent to the OP-1 thereby asking  it to pay the damages but nothing has been done by the OPs , hence this complaint.

 

2.     Complaint has been contested by both the OPs.  It is stated on behalf of OP-1 that since the burner, gas tube and pressure regulator were intact even after the alleged accident and the police did not register the FIR against the OP, the present complaint is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.   It is further stated that the intimation of the accident was never given to OP-1  and the present incident comes to its knowledge only after the receipt of this Forum.   the Dealer Package Policy bearing No.272600/48/2009/1847 w.e.f. 29.12.2008 to 28.12.2009 was issued to OP-2.  As per this Insurance Policy Schedule said claim is not covered under the policy.

 

3.     OP-2 has filed its written statement and has stated that on 8.2.2010, complainant informed him about the incident and as such the Prop. Sh. Ram Bhagat Rajora visited the house of the complainant and he found that there was no sign of fire mishap in the kitchen whereas in one room of the complainant there was Poojaghar where there was sign of fire mishap.  On inquiry, the complainant was failed to produce any article or its ashes for claiming the damages against the fire mishap.  It is prayed that the present complaint is frivolous one need to be dismissed. 

 

4.     Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has corroborated the contents of his complaint.  Both the OPs have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

 

5.     We have heard arguments advance at the Bar and have perused the file.

6.     It is argued on behalf of the complainant that on 6.2.2010 the  complainant brought the cylinder in the kitchen in order to connect it with the burner.  She removed the cap of the cylinder suddenly  the gas leak from the cylinder and started coming out as if it was a shower of liquid gas.  As the complainant and other family members started going out of the house a blast in the form of ball of fire in air occurred and the glasses of the window of the kitchen was set on fire.  Due to which the complainant incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- besides other relief and prayed that the complaint be allowed.  In support of his claim, she is relying upon the photographs placed on record.

 

7.     It is argued on behalf of the OPs the present complaint is mischievous and frivolous one.  The complainant had failed to inform the OPs regarding the incident immediately.  Even, the information of the incident was given to the policy on 8.2.2010, since nothing has been occurred as narrated by the complainant, police did not lodge any FIR regarding the same and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

 

8.     The complainant has placed on record, the reply to RTI application filed by her, advocate regarding the intimation to the police about the incident in question.  The perusal of the reply to the  RTI shows that the DD Entry regarding the incident in question was lodged at P.S. Keshav Puram.  The police had not registered the FIR because no cognizable  offence has found to be committed.  The OP-1 itself admitted in its reply that he received the information regarding the incident on 8.10.2010.  The complainant has placed on record the photographs of the burnt articles which clarified that the fire mishap had occurred on 6.2.2010. and the same was due to leakage in cylinder.  The claim of the complainant merely cannot be denied that no FIR was registered by police regarding the incident in question. The complainant has placed on record, the photographs of burnt articles but had not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding the justification of the claim of Rs.98,000/- prayed by him in the present complaint.  In such a situation, we are of view that since no bodly injury was caused to the complainant and her family members, she is entitled for the damages caused to household articles as well as in the kitchen which is to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. However, there is no positive evidence as to the loss sustained by the complainant.  The Forum assess the loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

 

9.     Non-settlement of the claim of the complainant by the OPs amounts to  deficiency in services on its part.  We therefore hold, both the OPs jointly and severally  liable for deficiency in services and direct them as under:

 

1. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.40,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.5.2010 till payment.

 

2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.15,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him.

 

3. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  

 

4. However, OPs shall be at liberty to recover the paid amount from Insurance Co. any if the cylinder was insured.                                    

 

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Announced in open Forum on 14/06/2019

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER