BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 25th day of October, 2008
C.C.No. 153/07
Between:
Y. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o. Bala Venkata Reddy,
Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District. …Complainant
Versus
1. Sri Siva Sakthi Gas Agencies, H.P.C.L.P.Gas,
Shop No.137, Srinivasa Nagar Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Industrial Development area L.P.G. Bottiling Plant,
Kondapalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company,
Ananthapur. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.D.M.Rama Chandra Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.N.Venkata Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1and Sri.A.Siva Ramaiah, Advocate, for the opposite party No.2 and Sri.Md.Ishaq, advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.153/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act, seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.4,38,000/- for loss of income on account of demise of complainants wife , Rs.5,95,000/- as damages to the house on account of explosion of gas cylinder , Rs.50,000/- for loss of house hold articles alleging that the complainant is a consumer of L.P Gas produced by opposite party No.2 through his dealer opposite party No.1 – vide consumer service No. 602667 and on 20-4-2004 at about 5-00 A.M while the complainants wife Y. Kalavathamma the wife of the complainant opened the rear door of the house , due to valve to leak gas cylinder exploded and said Kalavathamma succumbed to injuries sustained in said explosion and the police investigation as to his occurrence vide Cr.No.83/2004 of P.S. Gadivemula rooted out any bomb explosion for the said incident filling final report attributing the incident gas cylinder explosion due to defective regulator and in the said incident house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- damaged besides to his house worth Rs.5,95,000/- and the complainants wife who has to look after the handicapped son of complainant and his agriculture succumbed to injuries sustained in said accident and ensured loss of agriculture income worth Rs.4,38,000/- and the said accident was on account of the deficiency of service of the opposite party in supplying safe cylinder and regulator and the opposite parties gave evasive replies to the notice of the complainant and that led to filling of the case against the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the opposite party No.3 the company insuring the cylinders of opposite parties 1 and 2.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filling written version denying their liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 alleges itself as dealer of opposite party No.2 at Nandyal for supply of gas to consumers and the complainant is consumer for their gas with C.No.602667 to his residential address at C./20 Balaji Colony, Nandyal and use of said gas by the complainant at his house , in Gadirevula and police registering case etc., is not know of it and denies the explosion on account of the leakage in valve pin of cylinder or defect in regulator and the alleged valuation of damages to person and property of complainant . It alleges further that the intimation of occurrence to this opposite party was made about two years after to said occurrence with an ulterior motive to have wrongful gain with distorted facts and the case for accident was explosion of stored bombs is not rooted out from the earlier part of material of police investigation and the complainant making any earlier complaints as to the cylinder or regulator at his house and the claim of the complainant as imaginary and there by any liability of the opposite parties for the said claim . It lastly denies the status of consumer to complainant and any deficiency on its part and the case of the complainant as barred by limitation and the unauthorized use of gas connection by the complainant at elsewhere then the address registered for gas supply in violation of the service conditions.
4. The written version of opposite party No.2 besides pleading ignorance of the complaint averments alike pleas of opposite party No.1 admits it as a public sector undertaking of Government of India engaged in refining , distribution and marketing petroleum products through out India and the opposite party No1 as its dealer at Nandyal for supply and distribution of L.P gas cylinders to the consumers and the relationship of opposite party No.2 with opposite party No.1 is one of principal to principal basis and so activities of the opposite party No.1 not agent of opposite party No.2 and for want of privy of complainant to opposite party No.2 questions the status of consumer to the complainant to file this case and the use of gas connection at elsewhere than at the address registered is a violation .
5. The written version of the opposite party No.3 besides requiring strict proof of the complaint averments pleading their ignorance to it and taking same pleas of opposite parties 1 and 2 as to other aspects including case of the complainant as barred by limitation alleges that its insurance to opposite parities does not cover the risks of damages and losses accompanied by the explosions other than the gas use for illuminating or domestic purposes and for want of any intimation of said occurrence either by the opposite parties or by the complainant it has been deprived of assessing things at the earliest possibility and there by their holds any liability of it to the complainants claim.
6. . In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A 11 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and of its third party by name Rachamalla Gopaiah, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex. B1 to B6 and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 to 3 in reiteration of its defence.
7. . Hence ,the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties to hold their liability to the complainants claim besides to the limitation to file the case.
8. The Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.83/04 registered by the police station , Gadivemula U/S. 3 Explosive Substance Act , on the statement of Y. Kalavathamma the wife of the complainant as to explosion occurrence that took place on 20-4-2004 at 5-00 A.M in the house of the complainant . It says the explosion took place when she has opened the rear door and fire catched her clothes and charred her body and caused injuries and said explosion damaged the house also . It no where alleges that the said un happy explosion was on account of any gas leak . Therefore the Ex.A1 is not remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant to hold that the said explosion was as alleged by the complainant .
9. . The Ex.A2 is certified copy of inquest report held by police inafore said crime on the dead body of Y. Kalavathamma enquiring into the cause of her demise through persons acquainted with said circumstances which led to her demise . The said inquest opines the demise of said Kalavathamma was on account of explosion that occurred when said Kalavathamma opened the rear door to enter into the house . It does not whisper that the cause of said explosion was on account of any leakage of gas cylinder or defect in its regulator valve pin . Therefore the Ex.A2 not remains of any avail to the case of the complainant to hold that the said explosion occurred on account of explosion of gas cylinder .
10. The Ex.A3 is the Forensic Science Laboratory report as to the material in as many as in nine items seized at the place of occurrence . But none of them including the empty gas cylinder , regulator and gas stove and its rubber tube were found with any explosive substance all its residues to hold the said explosion was on account of L.P. gas explosion . Hence the Ex.A3 remains of any avail to the case of the complainant to hold as alleged in complaint.
11. Nor any damaged cylinder , gas stove , its regulator and rubber tube concerned to said occurrence is placed for appreciation before this forum to feel and assess there on that the said occurrence was on account of L.P.G. cylinder explosion alone and for nothing else other than it , especially when the final report in Ex.A4 also observes that none were responsible for the explosion and dropped further action.
12. The Ex.A5 – is set of four photos with their corresponding negatives . They too not remaining of any avail for substantiating the case of the complainant as it merely shows the damage occurred to the house and not envisages the position of the cylinder its regulator , gas stove and its rubber pipe at the place of occurrence and any damage to them to feel any nexus between the explosion and them and so the mere marking of Ex.A6 as to the valuation of damages without its substantiation by its author remains of any avail to the case of the complainant especially when the said explosion was not established as occurred on account of gas explosion alone.
13. The Ex.A7 is the office copy of legal notice dated 13-06-2007 addressed to opposite party No.2 . It is not remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant firstly while the other material alleges the explosion occurrence on to 20-04-2004, this Ex.A7 does not say of any explosion on account of gas leak except alleging the demise of Kalavathamma on 28-04-2004 due to gas leak, while the inquest in Ex.A2 envisages the demise of said Kalavathamma by 23-04-2004 itself. Nor the complainant files the notice dated 27-03-2007, alleged in Ex.A7, as was set to have been caused to opposite parties 1 and 3 and Indian Oil Corporation, Bombay – to know what was the earliest grievances of the complainant as to the said occurrence as the recital in Ex.A7 says of said notice as given to deficiencies of services leading to leak of gas and not of its consequences .
14. Further neither this notice in Ex.A7 nor the alleged notice dated 27-03-2007 appear to have been given at least within two years of said occurrence to feel any agitation of complainant for occurrence within the period of limitation as those two notices by their dates appear to be beyond the statutory period of limitation of two years to agitate for redressal , the said conduct of the complainant in the absence of any reasonable excuse for not making any such agitation for redressal of his grievances not only casts every amount of doubt on the bonafides of said occurrence but also amounting to sleeping over his rights to which law does not come to his rescue and in the said circumstances the reply legal notice of opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A8 remains of any consequence especially it is denying its liability for twisting of real facts .
15. The Ex.A9 post-mortem report concerning to Y. Kalavathamma wife of complainant as alleges the cause of her demise as toxic shock from burn injuries it is not remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant especially when it does not envisage the injuries were on account of L.P.Gas explosion .
16. The Ex.A11 copy of the adongal for the fasli year 1414 merely envisages of lands in the name of the complainant in Tirupadu Village . It does not appear to be of any help to the complainant as the complaint does not take any concern of his lands in Tirupadu Village as he takes mention of his 40 acres of land at Gadigirevula . Nor the complainant placed any cogent evidence as to his deceased wife as managing the agriculture of complainants land to feel the alleged disability to get agriculture lands consequent demise of his wife and got loss of agriculture income.
17. The third party affidavit of Rachamalla Gopaiah , find on complainant side , as to his affirming the cause of explosion on account of explosion of gas cylinder does not appear to be believable as his know of said incident comes for the first time in this case being not even made known to the police during its investigation as to the cause of said explosion . If he was person who was really present at time of said incident it must have been in no of the complainant at least who would have taken his witnessing the said occurrence as to gas cylinder explosion to the police investigation in the said matter . Further his existence of said explosion remains highly doubtful as the said occurrence was said to be at about 5-00 A.M of 20-4-2004 and no where his affidavit alleges himself as immediate neighbor of the complainants house to feel natural of his presence at or near to the time of occurrence . If he was a real witness to the gas cylinder explosion occurrence at the house of the complainant he would have been not lost site of at the time of inquest proceedings held vide Ex.A2 as to the cause of occurrence and demise of the deceased. His evidencing the gas cylinder explosion at the house of the complainant, in the circumstances appears to be an 11th hour set up as it did not find place either in the complaint averments or in the sworn affidavit averments of the complainant .
18. The E.xA10 is the consumer pass book for L.P.Gas supply to the complainant . It bears the date of its issual as on 20-10-1990 vide service voucher NO 618058 to complainant assigning consumer No.602667 on the address of complainant at Gadgirevula . It was issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant . Even though it shows it date of issue to 20-10-1990 , but from the entries in said pass book the supply of gas to the complainant under it appears to have been given from 5-11-2005 and not prior to it . As the date of occurrence being 20-4-2004 and the Ex.A10 does not envisage any gas supply to complainant at Gadgirevula address in the year 2004 , the Ex A10 remains of any much avail to the complainant to link the opposite party No.1 to the explosion occurred on 20-4-2004 at the house of the complainant taking the life of the complainants wife and damage to the house of the complainant .
19. While the such is so with the Ex.A10 – the Ex.B1 filed by opposite party side indicates that the gas supply by opposite party No.1 to the complainant with consumer No.602667 vide service voucher nO.618058 dated 20-10-1990 was meant for serving gas to complainant at house No.C / 20 Balaji Colony, Nandyal and from the absence of any entries of gas supply in Ex.A10 prior to 5-11-2005, the Ex.A10 is to be believed as not original book that must have been issued under E.x B1 but a book which must have been issued either on the completion of original book or one that must have been issued consequent to seeking of transfer from original address to the subsequent address obviously in the year 2005 . From this aspect also as there is no privity of contract between the opposite party No.1 and complainant for supply of gas by the former to the latter at Gadigirevula house of the complainant and in the days of occurrence the gas supply made by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant was expected for the use at the address mentioned in Ex.B1 i.e., at Nandyal address – even if the explosion is believed for a movement was on account of gas cylinder explosion , the said use of gas , supplied by opposite party No.1 being meant for use by the complainant at Nandyal address being use at the house of complainant at Gadgirevula remains violative of its authorized use and being so there remains any liability of the opposite party No.1 for un authorized use of the gas by the complainant at elsewhere than schedule.
20. The Ex.B2 to B5 are filled by the opposite party side to envisage the model procedure for having transfer of the gas service from one address to another address of consumer . No documentary record is place by the complainant side that it has got transfer of the gas service from Ex.B1 Nandyal address to Gadgirevula address of the complainant appearing in Ex.A10 , sufficiently earlier in time to the date of said explosion occurrence.
21. The Ex.B6 is the policy of insurance issued by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 covering the risk occurring in godown buildings or house breaking or burglary at godwon building , gas cylinder in transit , money in transit , in the custody of the delivery boys / authorized employees insured to / from bank – public liability any one incident / any one year – work men compensation annual wages for all categories of employees and as per L.P.G. Trader Policy at Nandyal. As the alleged occurrence took place at Gadgirevula and not even being at the place to where the gas supply is meant for consumption as per Ex.B1 , there appears any liability of the opposite party No.3 under Ex.B6 especially when the liability of the opposite party No.1 even is not established .
22. In sum up of the above discussion, there being neither any limitation to the complainants case as being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation of two years meant U/S 24 A of C.P.Act nor any material in the case of the complainant creating any nexus to the explosion to the gas cylinder supplied by the opposite parties nor there being any authorized use of gas supplied by the opposite party No.1 by the complainant at the place scheduled for its consumption nor there being any material in the case of the complainant creating any liability of the opposite parties for complainants claim , the case of the complainant being remaining devoid of merit and force it is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 25th day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Certified copy of FIR in Cr.NO.83/04 Gadivemula police station.
Ex.A2. Inquest report dated 23-04-2004.
Ex.A3. Forensic Science Laboratories Report dated 21-06-2004.
Ex.A4. Certified copy final report dated 18-02-2005 in Cr.No.83/04.
Ex.A5. Four photographs with corresponding nagitives.
Ex.A6. Estimation given by chaitanaya consultancy dated 24-04-2004.
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dated 13-06-2007 along with acknowledgement and receipts.
Ex.A8. Notice dated 12-06-2007 for OP.No.1.
Ex.A9. Certified copy of postmortem report.
Ex.A10. Domestic Gas consumer Card.
Ex.A11. Certified copy of Adangal for survey No.203 of Tirupadu (V).
for fasli year.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Subscription voucher in favour of complainant along with
terms and conditions.
Ex.B2. Application dated 17-03-2008 of K . Venugopal Reddy
Informing Change of address along with Xerox
subscription voucher and residency proof.
Ex.B3. Application dated 17-03-2008 of D.N. Prameela Rani informing
Change of address along with Xerox subscription voucher and
residency proof.
Ex.B4. Application dated 20-12-2007 of D. Narayana informing change
of address along with Xerox subscription voucher and residency
proof.
Ex.B5. Application dated 18-12-2007 of C. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy
informing change of address along with Xerox subscription
voucher and residency proof.
Ex.B6. policy informing of siva Shakti has agency issued by OP.NO.3
For 16-08-2003 to 15-08-2004 along with terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
