Punjab

Sangrur

CC/377/2016

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rishi Gas Service - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Gurinder Pal

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  377

                                                Instituted on:    02.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.12.2016

 

Karnail Singh son of Shri Chanan Singh, resident of village Khokhar Khurd, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Rishi Gas Service through its Proprietor/partner/Manager, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam and Distt. Sangrur (Authorised dealer of Indane Gas service).

2.             Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its MD/Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan, A-1, Near Metro, 15 Station, Udyog Marg, Sector-1, Noida (UP).

3.             M/s. Moonak Indane Gas Service through its Proprietor/partner/Manager, Tohana Road, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak and Distt. Sangrur.

4.             Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its MD/Manager, DO Ferozpur, 11, The Mall, Opposite Town Hall, Ferozpur City, Distt. Ferozpur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Gurinder Pal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Shri Nem Kumar, Adv.

For OP No.4             :       Shri RK Singla, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Karnail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is the consumer of OP number 2 by getting LPG gas connection bearing number B004316 from OP number 1. It is further stated that OP number 1 stated transfer of the said connection from it to OP number 3 from 2012 vide document number 31105050000192. 

 

2.               The case of the complainant is that on 28.11.2014, the son of the complainant, namely, Gursewak Singh and nephew Vakil Singh were at home and at about 1.00 PM they started to prepare tea and came out side and suddenly gas cylinder caught fire and blasted due to defective cylinder, resulting the house hold articles of the complainant were damaged in the said incident whereby the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10,00,000/-, of which DDR number 7 dated 29.11.2014 was lodged with PS Chhajli. The intimation of the loss was also given to the OP number 1.  Further case of the complainant is that he approached the OPs so many times for payment of the compensation on account of loss, but all in vain.  The complainant even got served  legal notices dated 9.3.2015 and 16.3.2015 upon the OPs, but of no use.   The grievance of the complainant is that despite approaching the Ops so many times, but no claim was paid.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further the complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the second complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP number 1 nor the cylinder was supplied by the OP number 1 and further this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was the consumer of Balaji Gas Agency, but the said agency was terminated and accordingly the supply of LPG cylinder of few connection including the complainant was attached with the OP upto July, 2012 and after July, 2012 the connection was transferred to OP number 3. It is stated that the complainant never intimated about the accident to the OP number 1 nor the OP number 1 had to do anything in this respect. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.               In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP number 2 and it is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the OP number 2. On merits, it is stated that the OP number 2 is not aware of any accident as mentioned in the complaint. However, it is admitted that the legal notice dated 9.3.2015 was received from the complainant of which reply was given to the complainant through their counsel M/s. Kapoor and Kapoor Law Associates, Chandigarh.   It is stated that the complainant never submitted any claim to it. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

5.               In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the gas agency is an agent on behalf of OP number 2, that the complainant has no grievance and has no right to sue or cause of action to file the present complaint as the complainant is himself at fault as per contents of the complaint, that complicated complex questions involves in the present case, that the present ill motivated complaint has been filed to get unwarranted benefits by seeking fanciful exaggerated compensation.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection number B004316 was issued by OP number 1 which was later on transferred to OP number 3.  It is also admitted that the OP number 3 has availed insurance services of OP number 4 vide cover note number 951176 dated 20.3.2014 for the period from 26.3.2014 to 25.3.2015 containing covering of insurance of public liability to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.  It has been denied that on 28.11.2014, the son of the complainant, namely, Gursewak Singh and his nephew Vakil Singh were at home and they started to prepare tea at 1.00 PM or came outside.  The complainant never informed OP number 3 regarding the alleged occurrence prior to serving of legal notice dated 16.3.2015. It has been specifically denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10,00,000/- or of cash, ornaments or other loss to house.  It is further stated that even otherwise, as per the complaint, complainant himself lodged DDR with police stating that accident was natural having no role of anyone and alleging loss of Rs.2 to Rs.2.5 Lacs, thus, the complainant is not maintainable demanding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The other allegations have been denied and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

6.               Record shows that opportunity to file the written statement on behalf of OP number 4 has already been closed by the Forum on 19.7.2016 and the OP number 4 filed a revision before the Hon’ble State Commission , which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 27.09.2016.

 

7.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of legal notice and postal receipts, Ex.C-7 copy of letter, Ex.C-8 copy of DDR, Ex.C-9 copy of report of Tehsildar of Lehragaga, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 copies of cutting of newspaper, Ex.C-12 copy of letter to Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, Ex.C-13 copy of ration card, Ex.C-14 copy of voter card, Ex.C-15 copy of estimate of Global Architect, Ex.C-16 copy of site plan, Ex.C-17 copy of passbook of gas connection, Ex.C-18 copy of letter dated 26.11.2015, Ex.C-19 copy of list of documents and Ex.C-20 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 copies of transfer vouchers  and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of agreement, Ex.Op2/2 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.Op2/3 copy of affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 copy of letter sent to the insurance company, Ex.OP3/2 copy of letter sent to the complainant, Ex.OP3/3 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.OP3/4 copy of welcome letter, Ex.OP3/5 copy of document, Ex.OP3/6 copy of ration card, Ex.OP3/7 copy of undertaking, Ex.OP3/8 copy of SV, Ex.OP3/9 copy of service of letter, Ex.OP3/10 and Ex.OP3/11 postal receipts, Ex.OP3/12 affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Ex.OP3/13 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP4/2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP4/3 copy of multi peril policy for LPG dealer and closed evidence.

 

8.               We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

9.               It is an admitted fact that the complainant was earlier consumer of the OP number 1 by getting the gas connection in question, which was later on transferred to OP number 3 in the month of July, 2012 as admitted by the Ops number 1 and 3 in their written reply, meaning thereby the OP number 1 had to do nothing in the present case as the complainant was the consumer of the OP number 3 only at the time of accident in question i.e. on 28.11.2014.       

 

10.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that when on 28.11.2014, the son of the complainant namely Gursewak Singh was preparing tea at the gas stove at about 1.00 PM, suddenly the gas cylinder caught fire and blasted due to defective cylinder, resulting which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of cash, ornaments and other losses.  It is further contended that the complainant also lodged a DDR number 7 dated 29.11.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-8 on record.  The complainant has contended further vehemently that despite approaching the Ops so many times, the OPs paid nothing on account of loss.  It is further contended that the complainant also got served legal notices upon the OPs, copies of which are on record as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.  Whereas, on the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the complainant never lodged any claim with the Ops nor it was told to the OPs about the blast of the cylinder in question. The learned counsel for the Ops has denied all the story of the complainant. 

 

11.             Though the complainant has contended and has sought an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss due to blast of cylinder, but a bare perusal of the copy of DDR number 7 dated 29.11.2014, wherein he had stated that he suffered a loss of Rs.2.00 to Rs.2.50 Lacs.  Further the complainant has himself produced on record the copy of application submitted to the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-12, wherein he has stated that he suffered a loss of about Rs.1,50,000/- due to blast of cylinder on 28.11.2014.  The complainant has also produced on record an estimate prepared by Global Architect, which is on record as Ex.C-15 to show that for the construction of a new house, an mount of Rs.9,90,880/- will be spent.  But, in the present case, the estimate should be about the loss due to blast of cylinder and not for construction of a new house from the plinth level, as done in the estimate Ex.C-15. There is no doubt that the OP number 3 has taken an insurance policy from OP number 4 to idemnify the loss, if any suffered on any count.  The complainant has not produced on record any complete detail of loss of articles and of building etc., but the fact remains that due to blast of cylinder the complainant must have suffered financial loss as is evident from the copy of DDR etc.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs number 3 and 4 are directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss due to blast of cylinder and to make the loss good of the complainant.

 

12.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 3 and 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of articles etc.  OPs number 3 and 4 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

11.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 2,2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member