O R D E R
This is a complaint filed U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the complainants towards compensation for the demise of the deceased in a gas cylinder blast accident, on the following averments. On 09.04.2012 a defective gas cylinder supplied by 2nd OP had a leakage of gas from the cylinder and as the same caught fire, the cylinder was blasted and damage was caused to the men and material of the complainant. In that accident the son of complainant by name Ramireddy and her daughter-in-law and grandson by name Suresh have sustained severe burn injuries. Immediately after the accident the injured were shifted to KGH and on 10.04.2012 the son of complainant died and after Postmortem was conducted over the dead body of the deceased the same was handed over to the complainant for obsequies. The 1st OP is the supplier who having received the stock of gas cylinders from the 2nd OP supplied a defective gas cylinder to the complainant and due to the dereliction of duties and deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. in supplying a defective cylinder the above said accident was occurred. As on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 40 years and was working as a supervisor in Sun Rise Company near Bobbili and was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. Due to demise of the deceased in the above said accident the complainant being his mother is deprived of his support and love and affection. Hence this complaint.
The 2nd OP filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and disputed about happening of the incident, relationship of the deceased with the complainant, the avocation and earnings of the deceased etc. It is averred that the complainant is not a registered consumer and did not utilize the services of the O.Ps. and there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties and as the complaint merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed.
In furtherance of complainants case the Affidavit evidence of PW-1 is filed and exhibits A1 to A5 are marked. Per contra on behalf of O.Ps. the Affidavit evidence of RW-1 is filed. The counsel for respective parties filed brief written arguments and have also submitted oral arguments.
Perused the material placed on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.
The learned counsel for the complainants has contended that OP-2 has supplied defective cylinder and as there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder on 09.04.2012 the same caught fire and was blasted and in the said accident the deceased Ramireddy, his wife and son sustained severe burn injuries and were taken to KGH, Visakhapatnam for treatment and while they were undergoing treatment the deceased Ramireddy died and as the men of O.Ps. were in dereliction of their duties and as there was deficiency in service on their part the above said fire accident took place and as such the OP’s 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
As against the above said argument the learned Advocate for OP-2 has contended that OP-2 did not supply any cylinder to the deceased Ramireddy and as the alleged fire accident did not take place due to blasting of the cylinder and as there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties, to this case, the OP’s are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.
When the contesting OP did not admit the supply of Gas Cylinder to the deceased, and as he has taken specific plea that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties the burden heavily rests on the complainants to prove that deceased has purchased the Gas Cylinder from the 2nd OP and as there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder the fire accident took place.
The person claiming himself as “Consumer” should satisfy three conditions, namely:-
i) The service should have been rendered to him.
ii) The service should be hired by him.
iii) For hiring the service he should have paid consideration in the manner envisaged by section-2 (1) (d) ii of the Act.
To prove the above said three conditions the complainants adduced Affidavit evidence and got marked the copy of FIR, Post Mortem Certificate of deceased Ramireddy, Death certificate of Ramireddy, copies of household card of complainant, copy of legal notice as exhibits A1 to A5 respectively.
As seen from the contents of FIR on 09.04.2012 at about 4 AM while the son of Ramireddy woke up and was crying, Ramireddy lit a match stick upon which there was huge fire and the household articles were burnt in the said accident and that the deceased Ramireddy his wife and son sustained burn injuries. It further reveals that the above said accident took place due to leakage of Gas from the cylinder. Except that the said report does not reveal as to from whom the same was purchased and as to who is the manufacturer of the said cylinder. Exhibit A5 is the copy of Lawyer’s notice and as per its contents on 09.04.2012 at about early hours due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by 2nd OP the fire accident was occurred.
As We have already stated supra the 2nd OP has totally denied about supply of Gas Cylinder to the deceased. In the counter filed by 2nd OP it is specifically averred that the deceased and his family members were not at all registered consumers and did not utilize their services in use of any cylinder.
When such a plea is taken by the 2nd OP and when a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed towards compensation, the complainant’s are bound to place cogent evidence to prove that 2nd OP supplied the cylinder and there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder and the same caught fire. In normal circumstances to purchase a gas cylinder from a dealer, necessary amount is to be deposited with him upon which a pass book will be given to the consumer and as and when the cylinder is supplied, the dealer would make an entry of said transaction in the said pass book as well as in the register maintained by him. The complainants did not produce the pass book to show that the deceased Ramireddy was a registered consumer and on a particular date, the defective cylinder was supplied to him. The learned counsel for complainant has contended that all the documents as well as the household articles were burnt in the above said fire accident and as such the complainant’s could not file any document to show that the defective cylinder was purchased by Ramireddy from the OP. If the above said contention is believed to be true, the complainants aught to have taken necessary steps to issue a notice to 2nd OP for production of relevant records to establish that deceased Ramireddy was their registered consumer. No such steps were taken by the complainant’s to prove that there was consumer and service provider relationship in between the deceased Ramireddy who was the Manager of the family and the 2nd OP. In a decision in Rangannagari Yadavreddy Vs Vijaya Kumar reported in 11 (2001) CPJ 391 where in it is held: In the absence of proof by way of some evidence the averments of the complainant by themselves cannot be accepted and when the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations leveled in his complaint the same fails for want of evidence and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra if the complainant fails to place cogent evidence to prove his case his complaint is liable to be dismissed. Coming to case on hand immediately after the accident a report was given to police and the police recorded the statement of deceased Ramireddy and basing on the said statement a case in crime No.70/2012 under section 174 CRPC was registered. As seen from contents of the statement of the deceased the fire accident took place due to leakage of gas. Except that there is no whisper in the said statement about the purchase of said cylinder and as to from whom the same was purchased for consideration. In normal circumstances when a crime is registered the police would visit the place of incident and would make necessary enquiry and would prepare inquest report to know the probable cause for the accident. But for the reasons best known to the complainant’s they did not produce any such inquest report and no steps were taken to summon the police to produce the CD to know as to why the said fire accident took place. Except making a bare allegation against the OPs to say that the defective cylinder was supplied by the 2nd OP and that 1st OP was the manufacturer of the same, the complainants did not produce cogent evidence to prove the said fact.
No evidence is produced to believe that the deceased Ramireddy or any of his family members, was a registered consumer of Gas cylinder and the same was supplied by 2nd OP to them. When the complainants have miserably failed to prove that the 2nd OP supplied the defective cylinder which was the cause for the accident no liability can be fashioned on the 1st OP to believe that the defective cylinder was supplied to the 2nd OP and their men were in dereliction of duties in supplying a defective cylinder to the latter.
Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have miserably failed to prove that there was consumer and service provider relationship in between the deceased Ramireddy and the OP’s, and that the deceased has availed the service of OP’s for consideration.
In the resut, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of July, 2014.
Member President
C.C.No.35/2013
For complainant:- For opposite parties:-
PW 1. RW 1.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A-1 First Information report in crime no.70 of 2012 of Bogapuram
PS, Dt.09.04.2012.
Ex.A-2 PM report of Pilli Ramireddy. Dt.10.04.2012.
Ex.A-3 Death Certificate of Pilli Ramireddy, Dt.14.04.2012.
Ex.A-4 Xerox Copy of house hold card of 2012, Dt.12.03.2006.
Ex.A-5 Copy of the legal notice, Dt.11.03.2013.
For OP: NIL
President
