BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 548 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 17.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 17.10.2023.
Naresh Kumar son of Shri Raghuveer Singh, resident of Gali Jandi Wali, Rania Chungi, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. RBN Bharat Gas Agency Rania Road, Ramnagaria, Sirsa through its proprietor.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Bharat Bhavan, Currumbhoy Road, Road No. 4 & 6, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001, (Opposite Grand Hotel) through its General Manager.
3. Parveen Kaur wife of Amar Singh, resident of Jandi Wali Gali, Rania Chungi, Sirsa.
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa through its Divisional Manager, Vide insurance policy no. 1119032618P, 112948019 w.e.f. 07.01.2019 to 06.01.2020 (Insurer of the ops no.1 and 2 under LPG Traders).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) initially against the opposite parties no.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as Ops) and thereafter also impleaded op no.4.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that op no.3 Parveen Kaur wife of Amar Singh has been staying and residing at a rented portion in the house of complainant for the last some years. She is a bonafide consumer of op no.1 having consumer no. 79512661 since 29.11.2016 alongwith distributor’s code no. 193619. That on 27.06.2019 at about 6.30 a.m., a fire broke out in the cylinder of op no.3 in the rented house of complainant. The serial number of cylinder in the card was 22163859 which was issued by op no.1 against no.084311. It is further averred that upon observing the fire, information was given to the Haryana Fire Service and consequently fire control vehicles bearing No. HR57-6850 and HR57-7035 reached at the spot under the supervision of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Shri Rishi Sihag, Vikram Kumar fire fighters alongwith Des Raj and fire was controlled but the building of the house and the goods therein suffered complete loss as it was a big fire tragedy. That complainant sustained loss of about Rs.6,77,925/- as per calculation and survey of an expert and the house hold goods of op no.3 also turned into ashes and complainant as well as op no.3 contacted the op no.1 a number of times but in vain and at last op no.1 flatly refused to entertain any of the complaint for the compensation of loss caused to his building. It is further averred that complainant requested the op no.3 for filing a consumer complaint seeking compensation against the aforesaid gas agency/ op no.1 but to the utter surprise of complainant she flatly refused in this regard. The complainant was under great agony as it is very difficult in the present time to construct a new house. That complainant had also approached the op no.1 for his grievance but op no.1 has refused to admit the genuine request and claim of complainant and thereafter complainant also got served a legal notice dated 26.08.2019 upon the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to pay a sum of Rs.6,77,925/- as compensation on account of loss and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 4 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of op no.1 and is not covered under the definition of consumer and as such complaint is not maintainable at all because admittedly Parveen Kaur is the consumer who has not filed the complaint; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and op no.3 Parveen Kaur has been provided with a domestic gas connection by op no.1 under Ujjwala PMUMY scheme and she was being provided the service of filling the gas cylinders as per record maintained. That Parveen Kaur has not come forward to file any complaint or claim against the answering op and as such complaint filed by complainant is without any basis. That complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is further submitted that answering op has obtained a public liability LPG Trader policy from United India Insurance Company Ltd. Fatehabad, vide policy no. 1119032618P112948019 w.e.f. 07.01.2019 to 06.01.2020 vide which the public liability to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- is covered besides fire and allied perils to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- and as such if at all the complainant is found entitled to any claim then it is the insurance company which is liable to pay the same. It is further submitted that answering op is simply acting as an agent on behalf of op no.2 and supplies the gas cylinders as it is as received from the said company and answering op has not been deficient in any way in their service towards its consumer and that complainant very cleverly has put forth a claim for Rs.6,77,925/- on account of the loss without any basis. It seems that complainant has procured a false report from some less assessor in connivance with him regarding such a huge loss. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the consumer Smt. Parveen Kaur had immediately approached the answering op and the Manager of op no.1 also sent to the spot and found that op no.3 is living in one room set measuring about 10’X10’. There was some loss to the goods of said tenant who had been living there on rent basis. The complainant did not have any goods or any furniture etc. in the said room. The fire brigade had also been called on the spot in order to extinguish the fire and the report of the fire brigade clearly depicts that there was only loss of a single door and a window and besides that there was no loss to the building and now the complainant is raising such a huge claim which is highly disproportionate to the actual loss and this fact speaks volumes regarding the manipulations on the part of complainant and that complaint is totally false and based on false facts. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is also submitted that survey of the op no.4 insurance company visited the spot and also conducted the survey. The cause of explosion in the cylinder is unknown and presumably the consumer Parveen Kaur did not follow the basic safety measures which were duly explained at the time of issuance of the connection to the consumer. It is further submitted that to the knowledge of answering op there was no defect in the gas cylinder. The consumer was provided with the refilled cylinder on 20.05.2019 and already more than one month elapsed in between. Had there been any defect in the cylinder, the same would have caused the problem during this period which is the presumptive proof of the fact that there was nothing defective in the cylinder. The consumer herself has not followed the safety measures and had been negligent leading to the mishap, so the answering op cannot be held liable in any way. It is further submitted that it is correct that fire brigade was called and fire was brought under control. It is however incorrect that the building of the house was affected in any way. The building comprises of two floors and on ground floor there are shops and on the first floor consumer Parveen Kaur was living and it is incorrect that complainant has suffered any loss as alleged. It is further submitted that in it is incorrect that complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.6,77,925/-. As regard to loss of the house hold goods of op no.3, the said op has not lodged any claim till date with answering op and complainant has no locus standi to put forth a claim for op no.3. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Initially op no.2 appeared through representative and sought adjournments for filing written statement but did not file any written statement and thereafter none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Op no.3 also failed to appear despite service of notice and as such op no.3 was also proceeded against exparte.
5. On being impleaded and on notice, op no.4 appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal, suppression of true and material facts and that complaint is hopelessly time barred and liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that no loss whatsoever has been caused to the complainant and as such he is not entitled to get any claim whatsoever from the answering op. That it is incorrect that complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.6,70,925/-. The complainant has failed to provide any proof/ expert evidence/ report regarding any loss to his alleged house. Even the ownership of the house of complainant is denied as complainant failed to prove any proof relating to the ownership of the house in question. It is further submitted that op no.1 has obtained LPG Traders Policy w.e.f. 10.1.2019 to 6.1.2020 and the insurance policy is always issued just to all exceptions, terms and conditions as mentioned in the insurance policy. The liability of answering op is subject to terms and conditions as laid down under the policy. The complainant is not covered under the policy and as such answering op is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Other preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and no deficiency of service have also been taken. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. report of Fire Station Officer, Sirsa Ex.C2, refill receipt Ex.C3, application moved to Executive Officer, M.C. Sirsa Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 and copy of insurance policy Ex.C9.
7. On the other hand, op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. R.P. Kamboj, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.R2. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Smt. Sulochna Proprietor as Ex.R3, invoice of refilling of cylinder of Parveen Kaur Ex.R4, receipt Ex.R5 and application of Smt. Parveen Kaur Ex.R6.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for op no.1 as well as learned counsel for op no.4 and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. It is the own case of the complainant that due to explosion/ fire in the cylinder of op no.1 being used by his lessee Smt. Parveen Kaur at his house, the loss was caused to his house and as such complainant in order to step into the shoe of said lessee Parveen Kaur for seeking claim amount for the damage to his house due to fire in the cylinder of his lessee was required to prove his ownership over the house in question. No doubt the definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services and as such for the damage, if any caused to the complainant of such services being provided by op no.1 to the lessee Parveen Kaur at the house of complainant, the complainant being affected by the services of op no.1 has its right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission but at the same time the complainant besides his ownership of the house is also required to prove his allegations of loss through cogent and convincing evidence. In this regard though complainant has claimed that as per calculation and survey by an expert, he has suffered loss of the amount of Rs.6,77,925/- due to damage to his house caused by fire in the cylinder but however complainant has not placed on file any expert or survey report in this regard on file. Although the Fire Station Officer, Sirsa in his report Ex.C2 has reported that in the fire house hold articles of Parveen Kaur and gate, window and door of the house were burnt and there was also damage to the house of the owner but the exact amount of the loss has not been mentioned in the said report. Since the complainant is alleging loss of the amount of Rs.6,77,925/-, therefore, the onus to prove the same was upon the complainant but complainant has failed to prove the same through any other cogent and convincing evidence. Even no document of the ownership of the house of complainant has been placed on file. The complainant has also not placed on file any estimate or any bill or receipts of the repair of the window, door etc. and house in question to prove any loss to him. Since complainant has failed to prove on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that he has actually suffered loss of the amount of Rs.6,77,925/- and there is no mention of any exact amount of loss in the report Ex.C2, so no loss to the complainant can be assessed in absence of any authentic evidence. Even the complainant has failed to produce on record any photographs of the damage window, door etc. and his house by which loss could have been assessed and in absence of same no loss either extensive or a little bit can be adjudged at all. The complainant was having sufficient time and opportunities to prove actual loss to his house but he has failed to prove the same and even no document regarding his ownership has been placed on file. So the complainant has failed to prove his case through any cogent and convincing evidence and as such complaint deserves dismissal.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 17.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
