Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/770

SHYAM SUNDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIVAM GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

SH.M.L.GUPTA

25 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 28.02.2020 passed in C.C.No.17/2018 by District Commission, Bhind)

 

SHYAMSUNDER ALIAS GULLE SHARMA,

S/O SHRI JAGDEEP PRASAD,

R/O BIJASEN ROAD, PARASHAR KA BAGH,

WARD NO.1, LAHAAR, TEHSIL-LAHAAR,

DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. PROPRIETOR, SHIVAM GAS AGENCY,

    NEAR NEW BUS STAND, LAHAAR,

    TEHSIL-LAHAAR, DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)

 

2. PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER,

    JABALPUR MPGR ORIGINAL OFFICE (HPCL)

    PLOT NO.1-2, PHASE-2 MANERI INDUSTRIAL AREA,

    THESIL, RESIDENCE-MANDLA                                                                           …. RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                   

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri M. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 25.07.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.17/2018 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/appellant has been dismissed, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal.

 

-2-

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant had obtained a LPG connection number 603219 from the opposite party no.1. On 16.05.2017 refill was asked by the complainant and the opposite party no.1’s hawker fixed the gas cylinder after fixing the regulator. It is alleged by the complainant that at about 5PM when he lighted the gas stove to prepare tea, fire broke out in the cylinder, the complainant and his family members came out of the house. The gas cylinder got burst and damaged the roof, walls of the house. Valuable household articles such as refrigerator, coolers, LED TV got damaged. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Immediate intimation was given to the opposite party no.1, SDO police Lahaar and opposite party no.2 was also informed. The employees of the opposite party no.1 came and took away the damaged cylinder and asked the complainant to proceed with the HPCL company. It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the opposite parties did not compensate him. He therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 –dealer resisted the complaint stating that gas cylinders coming from the company are provided to the customers. The complainant never asked to check all the equipment as per standard procedure of the gas company, he did not get change the regulator on time as also did not make any complaint. The

-3-

company is liable for the damages caused due to bursting of cylinder. No employee of the opposite party no.1 took the damaged cylinder. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2 submitted that the cylinders are prepared as per ISI mark approved by the government and valve fixed on the cylinders are properly tested thereafter the cylinders are provided to the distributors. The complainant did not inform the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that after taking LPG connection, the consumers are directed to follow safety measures and precautions such as the consumer is expected to check before lighting the gas, cylinder, the regulator, rubber tube etc that there is any leakage. There is possibility that the complainant not properly used the regulator and the gas leakage was from the regulator. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2. The incident occurred due to negligence of the user and therefore the opposite party no.2 is not responsible for the same. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has gravely erred in dismissing the complaint. He argued that there was no objection raised by the opposite parties that the

-4-

HPCL and insurance company be made as a party. In case of any accident, the local distributor and the gas agency can claim the insurance from the insurance company as the consumer has no knowledge that with which insurance company, they got insured. The District Commission did not consider the documentary evidence available on the record and erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed that this appeal be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation as claimed in the complaint.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the same pleadings as has been taken by them in their reply before the District Commission that the incident occurred due to negligence of the complainant and they had provided standard gas cylinder to the complainant. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the complainant has stated that he had obtained the LPG cylinder on 16.05.2017 from the opposite party no.1 and the hawker himself fixed the regulator and connected the cylinder with the gas stove before him. It is alleged that in evening at 5 pm when he lighted the gas stove, the cylinder caught fire and strike to the roof and fire broke out in the house and his house with household articles got damaged. If the

-5-

cylinder was defective it must have created problem at the time when the hawker fixed the regulator and connected the cylinder with the gas stove. It is not the case of the complainant that the hawker who fixed the cylinder did not test the gas stove after installing the cylinder this shows that at the time of installing the cylinder it was working properly. This clearly shows that at the time of fixing the cylinder by the hawker it was in good condition and the incident occurred due to wrong handling of regulator by the complainant.

9.                The incident took place on 16.05.2017 however, the intimation given to SDO police Lahaar on 19.05.2017 (C-4) i.e. after 3 days. Similarly, the intimation given to Police Station Lahaar (C-5) is dated 17.05.2017. There is no document to substantiate that on the very same day or later he informed the opposite party no.1 about the incident.  The complainant also failed to prove that the cylinder supplied to him was of sub-standard quality. Also the complainant did not implead the HPCL and the insurance company as a party to the case so that he can get relief from the HPCL on the ground that the cylinder is of sub-standard quality and the incident covered under the insurance company. 

10.              Considering the overall facts and circumstances and in absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be held that the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service. Thus, we find that the

-6-

District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant. We do not find any cogent reason to call our interference in the impugned order.

11.              In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                 Acting President                             Member