Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/34/2017

MD. NAKIB ALI BORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITATED - Opp.Party(s)

SRI GIRIRAJ RAI

08 Oct 2024

ORDER

Date of Argument  : 19.05.2023

Date of Judgement : 08.10.2024

            This complaint has been filed by the complainants U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming to direct the opposite parties to pay a total sum of ₹ 2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakh seventy thousand)only being the cost of damaged articles, compensation and cost of litigation.

Judgement

            The case of the complainant is that the complainants are the permanent residents of Lachit Nagar, P.S. Moran in Dibrugarh District within the jurisdiction of this Forum/ Commission. The complainant No.2 Md. Isad Aftab Bora is a domestic Gas Consumer being consumer No.T-13078 under M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency, Moranhat.

            On 04.11.2015 at about 2:40 P.M. suddenly a fire incident took place in the house of the complainant due to gas leakage from the regulator and gas cylinder and the fire damaged all household valuables like Fridge, TV, Mixture Grinder, Water Filter, Iron, Dining table, Cloth Stand, Dressing Table etc. etc. along with a house and caused loss for a sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh)only.

            The incident was reported to the nearest police station and fire service station and the authorities of police station and fire service station rushed to the place of occurrence and extinguished the fire and took control of the situation.

            After the incident one of the complainants, Isad Aftab Bora lodged a petition before M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency on 26.11.2015 along with police report and fire service report claiming compensation but the Gas Agency failed to pay the compensation, knowing fully that the fire incident occurred due to defective gas regulator and defective gas cylinder supplied by the said gas agency, which amounts to deficiency in service. Because the said defective gas regulator and gas cylinder were supplied by O.P. No.2.

            The complainant sent a legal notice on 20.01.2016 to the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. requesting enquiry and compensation but no positive reply had been initiated by O.P. No.1. The opposite party No.2 sent their agent Shri Pranjit Baruah to survey the damage/loss suffered by the complainant. The same agent again visited the house of the complainants on 05.02.2017 and assured the complainants to provide adequate compensation.

            Both the complainants live in the same residential building and suffered losses due to defective gas cylinder and regulator supplied by O.P. No.2 under Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and as such both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

            The complainants pray to admit their complaint and to pass an order to pay compensation as hereunder :

                                                Cost of damaged articles……… ₹ 2,00,000.00

                                                Compensation………………….₹     50,000.00

                                                Cost of litigation ……………….₹    20,000.00

                                                            Total                                 ₹ 2,70,000.00

            After registering the case notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties contested the case by filing their W/S. In their W/S the O.P. submits that the complaint of the complainants is bad in law and in facts which is barred by limitation and the complainants have no right to file this complaint. The complaint is also bad for non-joinder of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

            Admitting the fire incident the O.P. has denied that the incident occurred due to defective gas cylinder and regulator. The complainants were using gas cylinders since 23.05.2013 but the complainant never complained regarding defective gas regulator since the day of purchase. It is the negligence of the complainants as it appears that they were using old and depreciated regulator which caused the alleged fire for which opposite parties are not liable for any compensation. Moreover, the gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant after it has duly checked and satisfied at the time of delivery.

            The O.P. submits that the complaint is also bad for non-joinder of Insurance Company. There was a policy of insurance issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Admitting the appointment of one Sri Pranjal Baruah to ascertain the damage and losses of the complainant as stated by them and after the assessment the surveyor gave his report to the insurance company assessing the losses therein. The complainants were duly informed about the same and asked the complainants to take the money from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Divisional Office, Tinsukia.

            The O.P. has stated that the opposite party duly insured M/s T.K. Barah Gas Agency, Moranhat, Dibrugarh vide policy No.1303062615P109550717 valid up to midnight of 17.11.2016 and as such the said insurance company is liable for any claim arising out of the said insurance policy and the opposite party is not liable for any claim. The opposite party has filed the said insurance policy marked as OP’s document No.-A and surveyor’s report as document No.-B. O.P. has also admitted that the complainant No.2 is the registered consumer of M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency vide consumer No.T-13078 dated 23.05.2013 issued by O.P. No.2.

            The O.P. received a legal notice and duly replied the same. The O.P. has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

            In this case the O.P. No.2 has not submitted any W/S separately.

            Both the complainants in this case submitted their evidence in affidavit in support of their claim. Complainant No.2 Md. Isad Aftab Bora in his evidence has stated that he himself along with his brother Md. Nakib Ali Bora are the complainants in this case and they are living in the same residential house together.

            That he enjoyed cooking gas facility under consumer No. T-13078 under M/s T.K. Baruah Gas agency, Moranhat.

The complainants in their evidence stated that on 04.11.2015 at about 2:40 P.M. suddenly a fire incident took place in the house of the complainant due to gas leakage from the regulator and gas cylinder and the fire damaged all household valuables like Fridge, TV, Mixure Grinder, Water Filter, Iron, Dining table, Cloth Stand, Dressing Table etc. etc. along with a house and caused loss for a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh)only.

            The incident was reported to the nearest police station and fire service station and the authorities of police station and fire service station rushed to the place of occurrence and extinguished the fire and took control of the situation.

            After the incident one of the complainants, Isad Aftab Bora lodged a petition before M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency on 26.11.2015 along with police report and fire service report claiming compensation but the Gas Agency failed to pay the compensation, knowing fully that the fire incident occurred due to defective gas regulator and defective gas cylinder supplied by the said gas agency, which amounts to deficiency in service. Because the said defective gas regulator and gas cylinder were supplied by O.P. No.2.

            The complainant sent a legal notice on 20.01.2016 to the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. requesting enquiry and compensation but no positive reply had been initiated by O.P. No.1. 

            Both the complainants live in the same residential building and suffered losses due to defective gas cylinder and regulator supplied by O.P. No.2 under Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and as such both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

            The complainants pray to admit their complaint and to pass an order to pay compensation as hereunder :

                                                Cost of damaged articles……… ₹ 2,00,000.00

                                                Compensation………………….₹     50,000.00

                                                Cost of litigation ……………….₹    20,000.00

                                                            Total                                 ₹ 2,70,000.00   

            This CW-1 has exhibited the consumer card, police report, fire service report, application filed before the O.P. No.2, legal notice, acknowledgement card thereof, reply letter by IOC Ltd., list of damaged articles as Exhibit No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, 8.

            The evidence submitted by CW-2 Md. Nakib Ali Bora (Complainant No.1) is nothing but mere reiteration of the deposition of CW-1 Md. Isad Aftab Bora (Complainant No.2). So we think it not necessary to write the same deposition again and again.

            In this case O.Ps. have submitted evidence in affidavit of one Sri Solei Kumrah, Consultant Attorney of O.P. No.1 as DW No.1.

            In his evidence this DW has stated that he is the Divisional LPG Head and constituted Attorney of IOC Ltd., Tinsukia Indane Divisional Office. Challenging the claim of the complainant this DW has stated that the complainant’s case is based on false allegation and no household articles as alleged were damaged due to gas leakage and fire from the regulator and gas cylinder. In fact there was a small fire in the complainant’s house but it was not due the defective gas regulator and cylinder. The complainants were using gas cylinder since 23.05.2013 and they never complained about any defect in gas regulator since the day of purchase. The fire was due to the negligence of the complainant as they were using old and depreciated regulator for which the opposite party is not liable for any compensation. Moreover, the gas cylinder supplied to the complainant after getting it duly checked and satisfied at the time of delivery.

            He has stated that the opposite party in its W/S specifically stated that the claim is bad for non-joinder of United India Insurance Co. who issued the policy of insurance to O.P.No.2. Inspite of above, the complainant did not implead the said insurance company and as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party as well as non-joinder of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in his claim petition. The O.P. No.2 was duly insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of alleged fire on 04.11.2015 and the said policy was valid and subsisting at that time. In the premises, the said insurance company is liable for any claim arising out of the said policy to indemnify the opposite party.

            One Sri Pranjal Baruah was appointed by this O.P. to ascertain the damages and losses of the complainant. He had duly surveyed and submitted his report to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the complainant was duly informed about it and requested the complainant to take the money from IOC Ltd. Indane Divisional Office, Tinsukia.

            The opposite party duly received the legal notice and replied the same.

            The O.P. has exhibited the following documents :

1. Policy of insurance issued by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as Ext. –A.
2. The report of the surveyor as Ext. –B.

The O.P. prays to dismiss the complaint of the complainant.

            In their written argument the complainants have submitted and narrated the same version adduced in their evidence in affidavit. Reiterating the same versions the complainants have further submitted that the opposite parties had appeared in this case and filed their W/S and adduced defense evidence and exhibited the policy of insurance as Exhibit-A and Surveyor’s report as Exhibit-B. In his report the Surveyor assessed the loss of the complainants at ₹21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand)only whereas the complainants estimated their loss at ₹2,39,200/- wherefrom it has become crystal clear from evidence of O.P. that there was a fire incident and to assess the loss survey was done and loss was assessed but the loss assessment is different from which it is established that there is nothing to prove the case of the complainants as it has been established by the opposite parties.

            In their written arguments describing briefly the case of the complainants, O.Ps. have reiterated the same version adduced by DW-1 in his evidence in affidavit along with the documents.

            The O.Ps. have argued that the complainants never stated that it was a  new cylinder supplied by the O.P. and that the complainant used the cylinder after taking delivery from the opposite parties on the day of fire. They have submitted that O.P. No.2 was insured with the United India Insurance Co. vide policy No.1303062615P109550717 valid up to mid night of 17.11.2016. But the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of insurance company in his complaint. And it is not the O.P. but the Insurance Company who is liable for any claim arising out of aforesaid policy. The O.P. appointed Mr Pranjal Baruah for assessment of the loss suffered by the complainants. He assessed the loss and submitted his report to the insurance company assessing the loss which was reported to the complainants.

            The opposite parties submit that the complainant filed the complaint falsely to harass the opposite parties and to make unlawful gain for which it is liable to be rejected with cost.

Points for decisions

1. Whether the complainants are consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether this Commission has proper jurisdiction to try the instant case ?
3. Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency of services towards the complainants?
4. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition?

                                              Decisions and Reasons thereof

1. From perusal of complaint petition and documents submitted we found that the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act and this fact is not challenged by the Opposite Parties.

 

2. From perusal of complaint and documents filed along with the complaint it is found that this Commission has proper territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

 

3. Regarding deficiency of services of the Opposite Parties we have minutely examined the complaint petition filed by the complainants, W/S filed by the Opposite Parties, evidence in affidavit led by both the parties, documents exhibited and written arguments submitted by both the parties. We found that CW-1, Md. Isad Aftab Bora was a consumer of domestic cooking gas connection supplied by M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency, Moranhat, who was the dealer of LPG under Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Tinsukia. A fire incident took place on 04.11.2015 at about 2:40 P.M. in the house of the complainants and as alleged by the complainants, the cause of that fire which caused damages to the house-hold properties of the complainants amounting to ₹2,00,000/- was defective gas regulator and cylinder supplied by O.P. No.2. Complainants’ exhibit No.1, the copy of Gas Card proves that complainant No.2, Md. Isad Aftab Bora was a consumer of LPG vide consumer No.T-13078. Complainants’ exhibit No.2, the police report submitted by Moran Police Station certifies that on 04.11.2015 at about 2:40 P.M. a fire incident took place in the house of the complainants. The Station Officer, Moran Fire and Emergency Fire Station has also certified the incident of fire in the house of the complainant (complainant’s exhibit No.3). One of the complainants, Md. Isad Aftab Bora informed O.P. No.2 regarding the fire incident on 26.11.2015 through his letter dated 26.11.2015 asking him to make an enquiry and take action accordingly. Complainants’ exhibit No.4 is that application. As no action had been initiated by the Opposite Parties, the complainants’ through their advocate, served a legal notice on 20.01.2016 demanding to pay compensation to the tune of ₹2,00,000/- Complainants’ exhibit No.5 is the legal notice.

                    In reply to the legal notice served on O.P. No.1, this O.P. had submitted that on receipt of the legal notice their concerned Field Officials had contacted Shri Isad Afta Bora (Complainant No.2) to set up a date for visiting his residence where the accident had occurred and accordingly officials with O.P. No.1 along with Shri Pranjit Barhah of M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency had visited the premises of the complainants. Preliminary investigation had been carried out and the details of accident had been recorded after interaction with the complainants and their family members. This O.P. has also submitted in their reply that Indian Oil has a Public Liability Insurance in effect in which there is provision for settlement of loss suffered by a consumer due to fire accident because of LPG and accordingly they had initiated necessary procedure as per rules in vague for settlement of claim filed by the complainants. They had intimated the concerned Insurance Company regarding the incident and they in turn investigated the place of accident and assess the loss, if any, incurred by the complainants for settlement of the claim of the complainants.

                        Seen that O.P. No.1 replied the legal notice dated 20.01.2016 on 25.02.2016. The complainants filed this complaint on 08.11.2017 but nowhere the complainants had explained the details of the reply of O.P. No.1 against their legal notice. O.P.’s exhibit-‘A’ is the Insurance Policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Moran, Dibrugarh which proves that M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency was insured vide policy No.1303062614P109550717. We have seen that this insurance policy covers M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency for fire and allied perils, contents and others from 18.11.2015 to 17.11.2016. From this policy we found that only M/s T.K. Baruah Gas Agency is insured and not their customers. But from exhibit-‘B’ of the O.P. it is seen that Public Liability Policy No.0217002715P101332273 covers Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., all manufacturers of  petroleum products under this policy. Mr. Ranjit Baruah of Cunninghum Lindsey Internatioinal Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati, in his survey assessed the loss caused to the complainants at ₹ 21,600/- and after deduction of an amount of ₹10,000/- as excess net adjusted loss was shown as ₹ 11,600/- only. The policy includes this compulsory excess of ₹ 10,000/- for anyone accident U/S 1 and this excess shall be applicable to both (a) death/bodily injury (b) property damage, inclusive of defense cost arising out of any accident. In contrary we have seen that the complainants submitted a loss assessment estimate for themselves which was not prepared by competent loss assessor/surveyor for which it has become difficult for us to come to a conclusion regarding the actual loss suffered by the complainants. However, after minutes scrutiny of all the documents, exhibits we have found that the fire incident took place on 04.11.2015 and after obtaining fire certificate and police report the complainants filed application before O.P.  No.2 on 26.11.2015. But there is nothing in the record to show that during the period from 26.11.2015 to 20.01.2016 the opposite parties initiated any communication with the complainants for which the complainants were compelled to issue legal notice through advocate. Only after that the O.P. No.1 for the first time communicated with the complainants through their advocate. Exhibit No.6 of the complainants proves that the legal notice was received by the O.P.No.1 on 25.01.2016 and reply thereof was communicated on 25.02.2016 after a delay of exactly one month. On perusal of exhibit-‘B’ of opposite party we have noticed that the surveyor/loss assessor visited the premises of the complainants on 19.05.2016 and prepared his survey and loss assessment report after a gap of more than six months. We cannot understand as to how a loss caused by fire can properly be assessed after more than six months from its occurrence. We cannot believe that loss assessment done by the surveyor/loss assessor of the insurance company is genuine and based without prejudice.

                        Moreover, the plea of the O.P. that the complainant never complained regarding any defect in gas regulator indicates that there were no defect in gas regulator earlier and the plea of the O.P. of using old and depreciated regulator is not believable.

                        We found both the opposite parties are liable for their deficiency in delaying in solving the grievance of their consumers and as such they are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

4. In view of the discussions and observations above, we hereby allow the complaint of the complainants and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainants :-

 

1. A sum of ₹50,000/- against the loss suffered by the complainants due to the fire caused by the defective gas regulator/cylinder supplied by O.P. No.2.

 

2. A sum of ₹20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants.

 

3. A sum of ₹10,000/- as cost of this litigation.

 

It is to be noted that as we have found both the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in service towards the complainants, the awarded amount will have to be borne by both the parties in equal share.

All the above amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by the Opposite Parties within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgement and order.

This instant C.C. No. 34/2017 is accordingly disposed of on contest.

Send copy of this judgement and order to the Opposite Party for compliance. Complainant is to take step.