IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /49/2012 .
Date of Filing: 14.05.2012. Date of Final Order: 30.06.2015.
Complainant: Mira Bhattacharya, W/O Late Upendra Bhattacharya, Kandi Bandha Pukur,
P.O. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Puja Parwal, W/O Late Tailash Parwal, Puja Gas Service, Kandi Bisramtala,
P.O.& P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin- 742137.
2. Chief Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (OPG Div.),
Eastern Region, 34A, Nirmal Chandra Street, Kolkata-13.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ………………………. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for a sum of Rs. 9, 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and also a sum of Rs.25, 000/- for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP No.1 being L.P.G. Connection No. 1291 from i.e.1988. Rajendra Nath Bhattachyarra, son of the complainant caught fire due to leakage from the cylinder. He was immediately admitted to Kandi S.D. Hospital and then transferred to N.R.S. Hospital, Kolkata and died there on 15.5.2010 leaving behind mother, two minor daughters and wife. The incident was informed to the concerned Police Station. Post Mortem was done. The accident occurred due to supply of defective L.P.G. Cylinder. If the Opposite Party No.1 be careful before supplying of the cylinder then the unfortunate incident can be avoided. The deceased Rajendra Nath was the only earning member and the heirs of the deceased have no source of income. Due to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party the accident occurred. The petitioner several times requested the Opposite Party for payment of compensation but got no result. The Opposite Party never inspected the condition of the Gas Cylinder.
The written version filed by the OP No.1, in brief, is that the complainant did not inform the OP about any such alleged mishap took place on 11.05.2010 for about 28/29 months. . All the cylinders are carefully checked when received and before delivery as per the norms of the Indane LPG. No information was given by OP No.1 by Kandi P.S about any P.M. of the son of the complainant. He learns about the alleged fire incident for the first time. The instant complainant is utterly false. The complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version filed by OP No.1.
The W/V filed by the OP No.2, in brief, is that alleged incident was not reported to OP No.1. As the alleged incident was not reported by OP No.1, investigation could not be carried out by the OP no.2 to find out the cause of alleged incident. It is the practice of this Opposite Party that before delivery of cylinders to the distributors the cylinders are thoroughly checked and inspected at various stages. So, there is no question of supplying defective cylinder. The alleged incident has communicated to this Opposite Party that the alleged incident was not reported to the Opposite Party No.1. No document has been filed to show that the deceased was admitted in Kandi Sub Divisional Hospital and reported to Kandi P.S. The alleged claim of the complainant is illegal, malafide and harassing one and as such the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from this Opposite Party No.2. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed . Hence, the instant Written Version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points are framed for consideration.
Points for decision
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in the point of law and in fact?
- Whether there any cause of action to file the present complaint?
- Whether the complaint is defective in law for non-joinder of necessary party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the award as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 3.
All those points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
During hearing argument Ld. Lawyer for the OP has not raised any objection against those points.
Considering the materials on record we do not find anything adverse against those points and as such all those points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point Nos. 4 & 5.
Both those points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant’s main case is that Rajendra Nath Bhattacharyya, son of the complainant, caught fire on 11.5.2010 due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder and ultimately died at NRS Medical College & Hospital at Kolkata on 15.5.2010.
On the other hand the OP No.1-distribotor’s case is the complainant did not inform the OP about any such alleged mishap took place on 11.5.2010 for about after 28/29 months. All the cylinders are carefully checked when received and before delivery as per the norms of the Indane LPG. No information was given by OP No.1 by Kandi P.S about any P.M. of the son of the complainant . He learns about the alleged fire incident for the first time. The instant complainant is utterly false.
The OP No.2’s case is that that alleged incident was not reported to OP No.1. As the alleged incident was not reported by OP No.1, investigation could not be carried out by the OP no.2 to find out the cause of alleged incident. It is the practice of this Opposite Party that before delivery of cylinders to the distributors the cylinders are thoroughly checked and inspected at various stages. So, there is no question of supplying defective cylinder. The alleged incident has communicated to this Opposite Party that the alleged incident was not reported to the Opposite Party No.1. No document has been filed to show that the deceased was admitted in Kandi Sub Divisional Hospital and reported to Kandi P.S. The alleged claim of the complainant is illegal, malafide and harassing one and as such the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from this Opposite Party No.2.
The complainant has filed relevant documents in support of his case. Those are NRS Medical College & Hospital Emergency Room showing short history of the case as stated by the patient as Burn following leakage of gas and death reported by NRS Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata showing ‘cause of death is Burn Injury (85%) and forwarded to Inspector of Police, Entally P.S and P.M report dt. 15.5.10 showing cause of death following burn injury.
In this case it is clear that the incident of burn injury due to alleged gas leakage was neither intimated to OP No.1&2 nor lodged any FIR with the P.S. nor the concerned gas cylinder was examined by forensic expert.
It is also clear that there was no investigation of this case by any agency, either by IOC or by police.
It is further clear from the Xerox copy of the letter dt. 11.01.12 addressed to Chief Manager, IOC, LPG Div, Eastern Region, 34A, N.C. Street, Kolkota-13 intimating the incident and praying for accidental compensation without mentioning the name of the writer that the complaint informed the incident to the OP No.1, IOC after about one year and seven months where the incident took place on 11.5.2010.
There is no other document relating to intimation about the incident.
Also, there is no explanation as to such long delay in such a serious case of burn injury due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder.
On the other hand the OPNo.1 –IOC has made argument in his W/V that after the alleged incident on 11.5.2010 due to leakage of gas, further delivery of gas was taken by the complainant on 12.5.2010, 16.6.10, 19.10.10 without intimating the incident or making any allegation about such leakage of gas to the Ops.
Further, there is no categorical denial of this case of OPNo.1 by complainant by adducing evidence –on-affidavit.
The complainant ‘s case is that immediately after the incident they got her injured son Rajandra admitted in Kandi S.D. Hospital wherefrom he was transferred to NRS Hospital.
But, the complainant has not adduced any medical paper from Kandi S.D. Hospital.
Also, in the emergency ticket of NRS Hospital there is no reflection that the deceased Rajendra was referred to NRs Hospital from Kandi S.D. Hospital.
For absence of any medical paper from Kandi S.D. Hospital it is not clear initially the deceases was admitted in Kandi S.D. Hospital with what percentage of burn injury where death report of NRs Hospital shows that cause of death was due to 85% burn injury and from Emergency ticket shows that Rajendra Nath was admitted with 80% burn injury on 12.5.10 and died on 15.5.2010.
Regarding the main case of the complainant as to gas leakage there is only statement of the patient in the short history of the case made before doctor in the Emergency of NRs hospital.
There is no cogent evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the complainant’s main case as to burn injury caused due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder where the gas cylinder was not examined by any expert and the case was neither investigated by IOC being not intimated nor by police being FIR was not lodged by the complainant.
The incident of burn injury was caused on 11.5.2010 and the injured Rajendra Nath Bhattacharyya was admitted in the NRS Hospital on 12.5.2010 with 80% burn injury but the gas cylinder was not burst out where gas delivery exchanging that empty cylinder was on the very following day of the incident on 12.05.2010 which is the case of Op No.2 reveals from their written version and the same has not been denied by the complainant.
PM report and Death report only proves that death of Rajendranath was caused due to burn injury having 85% burn injury.
There is no iota of evidence that the said burn injury was caused due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder of consumer No. 1291 supplied by OP No.1.
Regarding the liability as to the leakage in the gas cylinder if any, the Ld. lawyer for the OP No.2-IOC has referred to a reported decision in (1994) I Sec-397-10C-V Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & another where the question was regarding regulation of unauthorized gas connection and it was held that non-regulation of the connection is not a ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(g) , CP Act and for that the complaint is not maintainable.
But fact of this case is quite different.
In this case there is no question of regularization of any unauthorized gas connection.
Here, the question is whether both the IOC, who is supplying the gas to Op no.2 and the dealer, OP No.2 are jointly liable for the supply of gas in a defective cylinder causing leakage of gas.
And for that in this case the aforesaid reported decision is not applicable.
The point raised in the aforesaid reported decision that distributorship granted by IOC on principal to principal basis and IOC is not liable for acts of the distributor under the agreement, is not applicable in this case.
In this case, if leakage of gas from the cylinder would prove, both the Ops would have been jointly and severally liable being defects in the cylinder supplied to the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence as adduced by the complainant as discussed above, we can safely conclude that the complainant has hopelessly failed to prove that burn injury caused due to leakage of gas and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above discussion we find that both those points be disposed of against the complainant and as such the complaint be dismissed.
Considering the decision of all the points together we find that the complaint be dismissed.
Hence
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 49/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest .
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
