Haryana

Kurukshetra

115/2018

Suresh Kuma r - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ranbir gas - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Kashyap

19 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.115 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 18.05.2018.

                                                                        Date of Decision:19.04.2019.

 

Suresh Kumar, aged 48 years, son of Sh. Inder Sain, resident of House No.288/10, Madi Mohalla, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. The Manager, Ranbir Gas Agency, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.
2. The Authorized Person/Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 4&6, Currimbhoy Road, P.O. Box No.688, Ballad Estate, Mumbai-400001.
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Jitender Kashyap, Legal Aid Counsel for the complainant.

                       Opposite parties No.1 & 2 already exparte.

Sh. R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.3      

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Suresh Kumar against Ranbir Gas Agency and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Op vide consumer account No.48144571 and purchased the said gas connection number with cylinder and chulha from the Op which includes insurance of the complainant for any damages on account of defect in the cylinder.  It is further alleged that in the evening of 23.07.2016, the complainant went to his kitchen for preparing tea and when enlightened the gas chulha, then suddenly the fire went into cylinder via regulator and cylinder started burning as there was leakage in the cylinder. The complainant firstly put water on it, but seeing the seriousness of the incident rushed outside the house alongwith his family members and their life could be saved with the grace of God. It is further alleged that complainant immediately called fire brigade and they puts-out-fire and it caused heavy damage to the complainant.  The wiring in the house of complainant was fully burnt, many household articles were also burnt.  There were cracks in the lentil and in the walls of house of complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant suffered the damage to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs.  It is further alleged that complainant made representation to the op for compensation which was sent through registered post and was duly received by ops. At that time, the ps assured that he will surely get compensation as there is a policy to pay compensation to the sufferers of accidental cylinder burning. The complainant requested the Ops several times for compensation but the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 12.4.2018 to the ops on 17.4.2018 but to no effect and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss caused to the complainant and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and further to pay Rs.7500/- to the DLSA, Kurukshetra on account of counsel fee as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 27.06.2018. 

4.             Opposite party no.3 appeared on notice and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation. The incident of fire is alleged to have taken place on 23.7.2016, whereas the op no.3 has received notice after expiry of more than two years. That no intimation/ claim regarding the above loss/ damage arising out of the fire in cylinder was reported by the insured to the op no.3. Even till today, there is no such intimation from the insured. That as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, any such loss or damage arising out of use of cylinder is required to be reported immediately to the insurance company, so that the loss/ damage/ cause of fire in the cylinder could be investigated and assessed by the surveyor who is appointed under Section 64UM of Insurance Act, 1938. That there is no privity of contract between the consumer and op no.3 and as such the complaint against op no.3 is not maintainable and that there is no question of any deficiency on the part of op no.3 against whom the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no such intimation was received by op no.3 either from the complainant or from ops no.1 and 2. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. OP no.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully and minutely.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant contended that due to defective gas cylinder of ops no.1 and 2, his house and household articles were burnt and the complainant suffered damages of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has cited case law of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Safidon Gas Service Versus Bhim Sain and others, 2015 (3) CLT 380.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.3 contended that there is no privity of contract between complainant and op no.3. He again contended that policy Ex.R1 clearly shows that op no.1 is insured with op no.3. If anything happens in the premises of gas agency, then they are liable for the damages. The next point argued by learned counsel for op no.3 is that there is no mention in the complaint that when the cylinder was purchased by the complainant and when for the first time the cylinder was used by the complainant. There are many other reasons due to which fire occurred in the premises of complainant, so complaint of complainant may please be dismissed.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The perusal of the copy of the gas connection card Ex.C5 reveals that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. Further the perusal of copy of policy schedule for multi perils for LPG dealers policy Ex.R1 reveals that opposite party no.1 is insured with opposite party no.3 and there is clause of public liability to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- in the said policy. From the report of Fire & Emergency Services of Municipal Committee, Shahabad Ex.C2, it is proved on record that fire took place at the house of complainant due to burning of cylinder. In this regard a DDR was also registered in police station Shahbad, copy of which is placed on file as Ex.C4, the perusal of which reveals that damage was caused to the household articles and to the house of complainant due to fire through cylinder.

10.            The contention of learned counsel for op no.3 that there is no privity of contract between opposite party no.3 and complainant, so op no.3 is not liable for damages caused due to burning of cylinder as mentioned in the complaint has no substance because as per clause VII in the policy schedule Ex.R1, there is public liability of Rs.25,00,000/- of the insurance company for which a premium of Rs.1000/- in extra was charged by the insurance company from op no.1 and thus op no.3 being insurer of op no.1 is liable to reimburse the amount of damages alongwith ops no.1 and 2 to the complainant being the consumer of ops no.1 and 2 towards public liability. In this regard reliance can be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Kerala State Commission in case titled as M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.V. Antony, Appeal No.286/15 decided on 28.7.2016.

11.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of damages to the household articles as well as to the house of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the ops will be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 19.4.2019.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.