O R D E R
This is a complaint filed U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards damages for the death of Pilli Gowri in the fire accident that took place due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied to the 1st complainant on the following averments. On 09.04.2012 due to leakage of gas from the cylinder supplied by 2nd OP to the 1st complainant a fire accident took place and as the gas cylinder blasted into pieces the house of the 1st complainant was completely damaged and her son by name Ramireddy and her daughter-in-law and grandson have also received severe burn injuries. After the accident the injured were taken to K.G.Hospital for treatment. Since the complainants were not in a position to bear the medical expenses the 2nd complainant took the injured Gowri to their house and on 24.08.2012 the said Gowri died. The above said fire accident took place due to the defective cylinder supplied by the 2nd OP to the 1st complainant and as the men of OP were in dereliction of their duties and as there is deficiency of service on their part the deceased died. As on the date of accident the deceased Gowri was aged about 40 years and was working as labourer and was getting Rs.200/- per day and due to demise of gowri the complainants are deprived of her support. Hence the complaint.
The 2nd OP filed counter disputing the cause for accident, the avocation and the quantum of earning of the deceased. It is averred that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the deceased and the 2nd OP and as the men of OP’s were not in dereliction of duties and as the fire accident was not occurred due to leakage of gas and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same merits no consideration and is therefore 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 OP’s 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 OP’s 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 Death Certificate of deceased gowri, copy of household card of complainant, copy of legal notice as exhibits A1 to A4 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 A4 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 complainants 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 complainants 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 O.Ps. 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.37/2013
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 Death certificate of Pilli Gowri, Dt.14.04.2012.
Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of house hold card,Dt.20.03.2006.
Ex.A-4 Copy of the legal notice, Dt.11.03.2013.
For OP: NIL
President
