BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

                   Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

  Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),

                                                           Male Member

Tuesday, the 28^th    day of September 2010

CC. No.  12 of  2010

Between:

Allepu Yellavva @P. Yadavva W/o Mallaiah,

Aged: 30 years, Occ: House hold,

R/o 6-137/1, Chandlapur Village,

Chinnakodur Mandal, Medak District.                                       … Complainant

          And

1. M/s Prameela Gas Agencies,

Prop: Potharaju, Pochaiah,

R/o chinnakodur village of

Peddakodur Mandal, Medak Dist.

2. The New India Insurance company,

5-2-174/2, II Floor Madan Mohan Building,

R.P. Road, Secunderabad.

                                                                       ….Opposite parties

This case  came up for final hearing before us on 23.09.2009 in the presence of  Sri. G. Rajesh,  advocate for complainant, Opposite party No. 1 being absent and  Sri P. Bal Reddy, advocate for opposite party No. 2,  on  perusing the record and having stood over for  consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award compensation of Rs.88,000/- against the opposite parties and to direct to continue supply of gas cylinder to the complainant.

                   The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1)                The complainant is resident of Chandalpur Village of Chinnakodur Mandal. She is consumer of H.P. Gas vide consumer No. 540015 and opposite party No. 1 is an agency of H.P. Gas having insurance with opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 612400/46/08/22/00000116. On 10.05.2008 when the complainant opened the valve of the gas cylinder as usual and set fire for cooking food, all of a sudden flames raised, therefore the complainant rushed out of the hut. The entire hut was damaged in the fire, including rice wroth Rs.1,000/-, utensils wroth Rs.3,000/-, clothes worth  Rs.4,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/-, which were kept in the hut.  The value of the hut is Rs.30,000/- . Therefore the complainant sustained  a total damage  of Rs.88,000/-, because of  leakage of gas from the cylinder. On the same day the complainant gave a report to Tahsildar, Chinnakodur and on his instructions Revenue Inspector visited the spot and conducted panchanama in the presence of Panches  1. Balaiah, 2. Kanakaiah and 3. Venkataiah who are residents of Chinnakodur village. The Revenue Inspector estimated the damage and furnished a copy of the panchanama to the complainant vide his letter No. MRI/2008, Dated: 11.05.2008. The complainant got a legal notice issued to the opposite party No. 1 on 07.07.2008 claiming  compensation of  Rs.78,000/- towards damage of hut and house hold articles. There is no response. The duty of the opposite parties is to check the gas cylinder properly before delivering the same to the customers. The accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant hails from poor family. She has no source of income to construct a new house and purchase essential commodities. Both the opposite parties, being the dealer of H.P. Gas and it’s insurance company, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 88,000/- to the complainant. Hence the complaint, to pass an award granting the above amount as compensation.

2.                The opposite party No. 1 remained absent, having received notice. The opposite party No. 2 resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a counter to the following effect:

                   The allegations in the complaint are not true and correct. Opposite party No. 2 does not admit that the complainant is consumer of Gas connection and she is a resident of the house number given in the complaint. She is in no way concerned with the gas connection or its use. The cylinder was filling with  care and precautions at the filling plant with the entire process of technical staff and in built checks, counter checks and cross checks regarding quality, quantity and safety. Hence the question of leakage of gas from the cylinder does not arise. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the installation of the Gas cylinder should be by the authorized agent, but in the instant case, the complainant herself has installed the regulator to the cylinder and due to her fault only the accident might have occurred. Hence there is no coverage. In any case,  opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation or damages to the complainant. The complainant herself is at fault and at her instance the incident might have taken place. No complaint was lodged either to the police or civil supplies officers or at least to the gas agency. Even in the complaint to the Tahsildar and as per the contents of the panchanama there is no disclosure that the incident occurred due to the flames on leakages of gas and no house number is also given. The claim of the complainant cannot be considered as the accident was not occurred while installation of gas cylinder by the  insured or authorized agents at the premises. In the instant case the alleged accident took place on 10.05.2008 whereas the gas cylinder was taken delivery on 05.01.2008; therefore the accident occurred after a gap of four months after installation. If at all there is any installation defect it should be immediately after installation therefore defect in installation is ruled out. Hence opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. There is no complaint to police nor there is any police record. The panchanama produced by the complainant is created for the purpose. Even in the said panchanama it is not mentioned that the damage was due to gas leakage. The complainant has not even intimated the incident to the agency. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.

3.                    In order to prove the contents of the complaint the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and marked Exs. A1 to A6 on her behalf. Evidence affidavit of Deputy Manager of opposite party No. 2 is filed to prove their counter. No documents are marked on their behalf. No written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 filed written arguments. Oral arguments are not advanced on either side. Perused the record.

4.                The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved that there is fire accident in her hut due to leakage of cooking gas and whether she is entitled for award of compensation against the opposite parties and for damages as claimed in the complaint?

Point:

The case of the complainant is that she is consumer of gas of opposite party No. 1 with consumer No. 540015 and on 10.05.2008 when she opened the valve of the gas cylinder and set fire it caught flames and the said flames spread over the entire hut and on seeing the same she rushed out from the hut and due to the flames the entire hut worth Rs.30,000/ is damaged including  Rice, Utensils, Clothes and cash total worth Rs. 88,000/- and she has given a report, regarding the incident to Tahsildar, Chinnakodur and on his instructions Revenue Inspector visited the spot and conducted panchanama in the presence of three residents of the same village  viz., 1. Balaiah, 2. Kanakaiah and 3. Venkataiah. It is the further case of the complainant that on the same day she gave a report to thahasildar and two months after the incident i.e., 07.07.2008 she got a legal notice issued to opposite party No. 1 claiming compensation but there is no response for the notice. Hence the complaint.

In addition to the evidence affidavit the documents marked on behalf of the complainant to prove her case are:

 Ex.A1 is four partly burnt papers of consumer gas book pasted to a paper. Ex.A2 is partly burnt SV/TV/CTA Form issued by  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited under  Deepam Scheme.Ex.A2 appears to be standing in the name of the complainant (Name portion is burnt however husband’s name is tallied) . Ex.A3 is  Xerox copy of panchanama dated. 11.05.2008 of Mandal Revenue Inspector, Chinnakodur together with copy of  his covering letter  to the Tahsildar. Ex.A4 is original application of the complainant to the Tahsildar for issue of duplicate ration card which contains endorsement of Tahsildar to the FPS dealer to supply ration to the complainant every month. Ex.A5 is Xerox copy of policy NO. 612400/46/08/22/0000116 issued by opposite party No. 2 in the name of opposite party No. 1. Ex.A6 is three positive photographs alleged to be of the burnt hut.

From the evidence affidavit of the complainant and by looking at exhibits marked on her behalf  there is satisfactory evidence about incident of fire and damage to house hold articles.  The first and four most document available regarding fire incident is Ex.A3, which is Xerox copy of panchanama dated 11.05.2008, together with covering letter. Either in the panchanama or in the covering letter attached to it, the house number of the complainant is not mentioned. Further it is also not mentioned that the fire incident was due to leakage of cooking gas. The complainant has not filed evidence affidavit of any of the panch witnesses or other witnesses who signed  the panchanama. Even evidence affidavit of any of the villagers is not filed to prove that the fire incident was due to leakage of cooking gas in the hut of the complainant. First page of burnt gas consumer book in Ex.A1 contains particulars of the name of the complainant etc., in which door No. 1-137/1 is written with a different pen. It appears that this is a subsequent addition, most probably for the purpose of filing of this case. As seen from the complaint and Ex.A4 the house No. of the complaint is 6-137/1 which does not tally with the house number written on the first page of the gas consumer book. As seen from page No. 6 of the gas consumer book in Ex.A1 the last two entries are 05/01/08 and 30.05.2008. The above said two dates are expected dates of delivery of gas cylinder. The alleged fire incident is on 10.05.2008. Therefore we are not concerned with the last entry date 30.05.2008 because it is subsequent to the alleged fire incident. Therefore we have to consider the last but one entry date which is 05.01.2008. This date is more than four months prior to the alleged fire incident. As seen from the first page of the gas consumer book the complainant is a single cylinder holder but not double. Therefore,  if at all the incident of fire due to leakage of gas is believed to the true it must be for the cylinder delivered on 05.01.2008. Therefore the leakage of gas cannot be believed to be due to negligence in installation or otherwise. If the fire incident due to gas leakage is true, it might be due to damage of pipe through which gas passes from the cylinder to the gas stove through the regulator. For such damage opposite parties cannot be held responsible. Moreover the complainant has not given any report to any of the opposite parties, though not immediately after the incident, at least after passing of some time. Admittedly the complainant has not given any complaint to the opposite parties  or to civil supplies department regarding the incident. Even though the complainant stated that she got a legal notice dated 07.07.2008 issued to opposite party No. 1, there is no proof in that regard. Even though opposite party No. 1 has not contested the matter it is the duty of the complainant to prove her case in all respects.

From out of the evidence produced by the complainant even though there is proof of fire incident in which there was damage of house hold articles, it is not satisfactorily proved that the incident was in the hut of the complainant due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1. Except the self serving version of the complainant there is no other evidence to prove the case of the complainant. From the circumstances discussed above, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this forum. The point is answered against the complainant.

5.               In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this      28^th      day of September, 2010.

        Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                   MALE MEMBER

1. The Complainant                   Copy delivered  to the Complainant/
2. The Opposite parties                  Opp.Parties on _____________
3. Spare copy

Dis.No.                 /2010, dt.