DATE OF FILING-16.12.2011
DATE OF DISPOSAL-21.4.2014
O R D E R
Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member
The case of the complainant is that on 24.10.2010 at about 11.00 P.M. he sustained fire burning injury at his residence due to leakage of L.P.Gas from the cylinder supplied by Opposite Party No.1. The fire was extinguished by Fire Station Authority being informed by him and a certificate was also obtained from the fire station authority about the incident. It is further alleged that the fire was occurred due to leakage from the L.P.Gas supplied by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and thereby he sustained physical injury and admitted in the M.K.C.G.Medical Hospital, Berhampur. By the way he incurred nearly Rs.70,000/- for his treatment. Besides, he also sustained loss of income during his treatment period of about three months. He put his grievance before the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 but no fruitful result was forthcoming. Subsequently, he sent notices through his Advocate on 23.3.2011 and 23.9.2011,but that also did not yield any result. He,therefore, filed this consumer complaint claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- in total for the loss and damage caused to him due to dereliction of duties and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 including cost of litigation. In support of his case, the complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.
2- The Opposite Party No.1 does not prefer to file written statement despite several opportunities were given, hence set as ex-parte on 18.3.2012 The Opposite Party No.2 in its written version has denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant as imaginary, concocted and frivolous. It is stated that on examining the customer history record it reveals that the complainant had received the refill cylinder from the Distributor on 25.9.2010 and 29.10.2010. At the time delivery of cylinder on 25.9.2010, the seal of the cylinder was opened in front of the customer and no leak and any other defect was observed by him in the cylinder. So he kept it with him and signed the memo of Opposite Party No.1. So any incident happened later on is no doubt due to negligence and unsafe practice of customer. It is further stated that the Certificate dt.11.1.2011 issued by Fire Office of Surada stating the cause of fire due to leakage of gas can not be put liable to Opposite Party No.2 since nowhere the Fire Office stated to have any defect or leaky in the cylinder. It is further stated that the complainant, soon after the incident, has neither informed to local police station nor he informed to Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. Under these circumstances, the complainant has no locu-standi to claim damage from Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.2 further submits that as per Clause 17 of the Distributorship Agreement executed between the Corporation and Opposite Party No.1, the relationship between the distributor and the corporation as principal to principal basis and not an agent or on account of Corporation. Therefore, the corporation would not be liable in any way for any act or omission on the part of the distributor. It is, therefore, contended for dismissal of the case against Opposite Party No.2. In support of its pleadings, the Opposite Party No.2 has filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure 1 to 4 respectively along with memo of citations.
3- The Opposite Party No.3 in its written version has contended that there is no case against the insurance company and the complainant is not a consumer of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant has not also lodged any claim with them and as such the Opposite Party No.3 is not liable to compensate to the complainant as it does not bear any legal, equitable and reasonable basis . It is,thus, prayed by Opposite Party No.3 for dismissal of the case.
4- On the date of hearing the complainant was found absent . Moreover, from the case record it reveals that despite several adjournments, he has not presented his case . The case is heard from the side of the learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties and the case is taken up on merit as per Section 13(2)© of the C.P.Act,1986, taking into consideration the documents filed by the complainant. We have perused the written notes of arguments filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
5- It is not disputed that the complainant is the customer of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. It is also not disputed that the cylinders were supplied to the complainant on 25.9.2010 and 29.10.2010 by Opposite Party No.1, being the distributor of L.P.Gas, appointed by Opposite Party No.2. At the time of receiving the gas cylinder by the complainant nothing was recorded that there was any defect or leakage in the cylinder. However, it is the case of the complainant that on 24.10.10 due to leakage in the cylinder fire was caught at11.00 P.M and he sustained burning injury and the fire was put off on intervention of Fire Station authority of Surada. Although, the complainant obtained the report of the Fire Station authority wherein it was certified that the fire was caught due to leakage in gas cylinder. But no police complaint was lodged by the complainant to investigate into the matter and to prove his case of burning injury caused to him and subsequent admission in hospital for the treatment of burning injury. Moreover, it is denied by Opposite Party No.2 that no complaint was lodged with them soon after the incident. In absence of any rebuttal evidence regarding the cause of fire, it can not be believed that the cause of fire was occurred due to leakage of gas cylinder. Moreover, the only report of the fire agency would not be sufficiently proved to the case of the complainant. Moreover, on perusal of the case record, it reveals that the complainant has been remaining absent despite several adjournments were given to contest and prove his case. In absence of sufficient evidence in support of complaint of the complainant, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the complainant being devoid of any merit.
6- In the result, the instant consumer complaint is dismissed having no merit as well as for want of rebuttal evidence in favour of the complainant. Parties are to bear their own cost.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 21st day of April,2014.
I AGREE MEMBER
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu,Member) (Mrs.Minati Pradhan)
