DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).

C. C. No.12 of 2016

Instituted On:1.02.2016

Decided On: 25.10.2016

1.Ravinder Pal, aged about 45 years son of Baldev Raj son of Jaggu Mal;

2.Manisha, minor daughter, aged about 16 years;

3.Anmol, minor daughter, aged about 14 years;

4.Amitoj, minor son, aged about 11 years, minors through their father Ravinder Pal as their natural guardian, having no adverse interest as that of the minors;

5.Vinod Kumar (connection holder of Gas Connection bearing No.66913075 having card serial No.15919169) son of Baldev Raj son of Jaggu Mal;

All residents of Village Balouch Kera @ Farid Kera(near Gurdwara Sahib), Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.......... Complainants.

Versus

1. Sunrise Bharat Gas, Gramin Vitrak Sangria Road, Seeto Guno, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory.

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, having its registered office at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Post Box No.688, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-4000011 through its authorized signatory.

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Main Bazar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager. ..........Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.

Quorum: Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, President.

Smt. Meenakshi, Member.

Smt. Mandeep Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh. Balram Yadav Advocate for Complainant,

Sh. Babu Singh Sidhu Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte(Heard with permission at the time of arguments Sh.JD Nayyar Advocate.

Sh.Amit Chhabra Advocate for OP No.3.

ORDER

KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.18 Lakhs to the complainants on account of death of the wife of the complainant namely Gurpreet Kaur, who died due to burn injuries arising out of the sudden leakage of Gas Cylinder issued by the OPs; to pay Rs.1 Lakh as mental tension, harassment, agony to the complainants; alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that complainant No.1 alongwith his wife and children are resident in a joint family with his other real brother namely Vinod Kumar (complainant No.5) and his family members. The complainant and his brother are joint in their mess, kitchen, food and residence jointly since their birth. With the consent of whole family members, the brother of the complainant No.1 namely Vinod Kumar complainant No.5 got issued one gas connection bearing No.66913075 having card serial No.15919169. OP No.1 issued the gas connection to the complainant after spot/kitchen inspection as per rules of the OPs. As per the law and rules, in a common tendency it the OP No.1 who used to get insure the cylinders etc issued by them to it consumers, itself from the insurance company from any damage loss of any burn of cylinder, mis-happening etc while using the cylinders of the company by its consumers and OP used to charge the amount of the insurance from the consumer at the time of issuing such connections to them and even the gas pipes, regulators and other related to equipments etc are being insured under such insurance, in order to save its customers from any loss or mis-happening at any time arising out of the use of the cylinders. On the fateful day of 23.10.2015 at about 4.00 AM, the wife of the complainant No.1 namely Gurpreet Kaur went into the kitchen of her house for preparing tea. When she switch on the bulb of the kitchen then suddenly there was big blow of fire occurred in the kitchen due to the leakage of gas in the kitchen and resultantly the body of the wife of the complainant No.1 badly burnt in that fire. On raising noise by her to save her from fire, the complainants No.1 & 5 and other family members rushed towards the kitchen but the wife of the complainant was badly burnt. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members came to know that the fire has been occurred due to the leakage of the gas in the kitchen. Wife of the complainant was taken to Juneja Hospital, Malout for her medical treatment and she was further referred to Adesh Hospital and Research Centre, Sir Muktsar Sahib, where she died due to 80% burn injuries as per the medical record on dated 24.10.2015. The matter was duly informed to the policy and one rapat No.13 dated 23.10.2015 was entered at Police Station Bhai Kera, PS Lambi. The above said fire has been occurred due to the leakage of gas in the kitchen, which is great negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 in issuing defective gas cylinders or its defective equipments to the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainants have filed the present complainant seeking relief mentioned above.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed written replies.

4. Opposite party no.1 pleaded that the OP has issued the gas connection only to Vinod Kumar and in the alleged accident Vinod Kumar and his family did not suffer any burn any injury or loss and gas connection is not issued to the name of complainants No.1 to 4, nor complainants No.1 to 4 and deceased Gurpreet Kaur were issued any gas connection by the OP No.1 nor they reside with Vinod Kumar. As per record the cylinder refilled and delivered on 19.10.2015 at the home of Vinod Kumar but alleged occurrence took place on 23.10.2015, if there is any leakage of gas and defect in the cylinder then the incident might have took place earlier. Moreover, Vinod Kumar and any other person did not give any information to the OPs No.1 & 2. The OP No.1 has insured its gas agency and policy No.401006/48/15/ 2000000086, and policy was valid upto 25.6.2015 to midnight 24.6.2016. No alleged accident took place as alleged with the gas connection issued by the OP No.1, if the complainant party has not shown any gas cylinder, regulator, gas pipes, chullah etc not tested from any expert. In these circumstances OP No.1 is not liable for any amount of claim and damages. Other allegations of the complainants have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. Opposite party no.2 pleaded that it is the concocted story with a sole purpose to link the family of Vinod Kumar with Ravinder Kumar and his family with a malafide intention to get wrongful claim against the alleged fire. However, the issuance of gas connection No.66913075 with card serial No.15919169 having been issued in the name of Vinod Kumar and it does not make Ravinder Kumar or his family as the consumer of the said gas connection. In these circumstances OPs NO.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any claim amount and damages

6 OP No.3 pleaded that the policy for LPG Traders Combined Policy vide policy No.401006/48/15/2000000086 has been issued for the period 25.6.2015 to 24.6.2016 for a total sum of Rs.3730000/- in the name of OP No.1 but the alleged loss of the complainant does not fall under the purview of policy issued by the OP No.3 as the alleged loss of the complainant fall under the product liability for which no any premium has been charged by the OP and the liability, if any, to pay the compensation to the complaints that is of the OPs No.1 & 2 being planters of the LPG gas cylinders.

7. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.

8. Complainant Ravinder Pal (complainant No.1) tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of gas booking passbook Ex.C2, photocopy of gas delivery entry on passbook Ex.C3, copy of certificate from village panchayat Ex.C4, attested copy of DMC of Gurpreet Kaur of Twelfth class Ex.C5, attested copy of Matriculation Certificate of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C6, attested copy of Twelfth class certificate of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C7, attested copy of ETT first year certificate of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C8, attested copy of ETT second year certificate of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C9, attested copy of ETT certificate of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C10, photocopy of rapat roznamcha dated 23.10.2015 of Police Post Bhai Kera Ex.C11, photocopy of postmortem report of Gurpreet Kaur Ex.C12. Further complainant No.5 Vinod Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.C13. Witness Gulab Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.C14, and counsel for complainant Sh.Balram Yadav tendered photocopy of statement dated 23.10.2015 of Gurdeep Kaur @ Vandna wife of Vinod Kumar Ex.C15 and closed evidence on behalf of complainants.

9. OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/1, insurance policy cover note Ex.OP1/2 and closed his evidence.

10. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Narula, Branch Manager, Ex.OP3/1, photocopy of proposal form filled by OP No.1 Ex.OP3/2, photocopy of policy terms and conditions Ex.OP3/3, photocopy of policy Ex.OP3/4 and close evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

11. Vide order dated 28.7.2016, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte as none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 but at final stage of arguments counsel for OP No.2 was allowed to argue only and was heard.

12. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.

13. Counsel for the complainant Sh.Balram Yadav argued that OP No.2 is the manufacturer whereas OP No.1 is the authorized dealer or distributing the gas cylinder or domestic purpose. Accordingly, Vinod Kumar complainant No.5 approached to the OP No.1 who issued/release gas connection bearing No.66913075. Unfortunately, on 23.10.2015 at about 4.00 AM wife of the complainant No.1 namely Gurpreet Kaur entered into the kitchen premises for preparing tea. When she switch on the bulb of the kitchen then suddenly there was big blow of fire occurred in the kitchen due to the leakage of gas. Resultantly, wife of the complainant badly burnt and on raising noise by her to save, the complainants No.1 & 5 alongwith other family members rushed to the kitchen, thereupon Gurpreet Kaur badly burnt. After arranging the vehicle, she was got admitted at Juneja Hospital, Malout and then referred to Adesh Hospital and Research Centre, Sir Muktsar Sahib. Unfortunately, she died due to 80% burn injuries on 24.10.2015. Learned counsel for complainant further argued that matter was reported to the police. Postmortem was conducted and dead body was cremated. He also requested that occurrence took place due to leakage of gas in the kitchen which is great negligence, deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 who issued the defected gas cylinder. When issued defective gas cylinder and then it amounts to deficiency in service and the fire claimed the precious life of Gurpreet Kaur. Lastly prayed that connection as in the name of Vinod Kumar and complainants No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased. In their favour, complaint be allowed with cost.

14. Sh.Babu Singh Sidhu counsel for OP No.1 argued that Vinod Kumar is the consumer in whose favour gas connection was released, to whom cylinder was released on 18.10.2015 and occurrence is of dated 23.10.2015. Entire business of the OP No.1 is insured with OP No.3 even including the consumer. If the Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency then insurance company is liable but complainant remained unable in providing the deficiency. By referring documentary evidence prayer to dismiss the complaint.

15. Sh.JD Nayyar counsel for OP No.2 argued that complainant remained unable in providing deficiency of service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. No doubt complaint No.5 Vinod Kumar is the consumer in whose favour gas connection was released and copy was issued. When Vinod Kumar is consumer then against the OP, the complaint is not maintainable because neither deceased nor her husband/children are the consumers. By referring documentary evidence, prayed to dismiss the complaint for the reason, cylinder was issued on 18.10.2016 and occurrence took place on 23.10.2015 after about of 5 days use of cylinder. More so, neither there is report of leakage of cylinder nor blast in the police report. Postmortem was conducted. Dead body was cremated but complainants remained unable in proving deficiency on the part of OPs.

16. Sh.Amit Chhabra counsel for OP No.3 argued that no doubt the business of OP No.1 insured with OP No.3 and the occurrence alleged is not covered under the policy, because neither there was blast of cylinder nor was leakage even the occurrence took place due to the negligence of the deceased. Further more, police report and statement of Gurdeep Kaur wife of actual consumer Vinod Kumar got recorded her statement dated 23.10.2015, copy of which is Ex.C15 in which she categorically stated that occurrence took place all of sudden and nobody is at fault. Learned counsel by referring documentary evidence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

17. Before coming to the real controversy, firstly Forum is decide whether complainant is a consumer and complaint is maintainable. Further, if the complaint is maintainable and deceased/complainants were consumer then to find out whether occurrence took place due to deficiency in service?

18. Admittedly, OP No.1 issued gas connection in the name of Vinod Kumar son of Baldev Raj and cylinder was issued on 18.10.2015. There is no document on the file to prove that deceased or her husband were the consumers. Complainants not placed on file any document to prove qua joint family, even not produced copy of ration card etc. Rather place on file one certificate Ex.C4 issued by Rupinder Kaur, Sarpanch of the village that deceased, Ravinder Pal and Vinod Kumar are having jointly family. If they were joint then why they not produce on file any authenticated piece of evidence. More so, the police report and other documents are relied upon, not proves the complainant version. Rather complainant itself relied upon the Gas-copy qua supply of gas cylinder that in the name of Vinod Kumar. So, neither deceased nor her husband and even not the complainants No.2 to 4 are the consumer and their relation does not exist.

19. In the foregoing para, this Forum has held against the complainant and now it is to be decided whether there was deficiency of service on the part of OPs, occurrence took place due to the fault of OPs No.1 & 2. This Forum has come to the conclusion that complainant remained unable in discharging the onus and in proving that whether there was any deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Complainant in support of claim has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 which is in accordance to the complaint, Ex.C5 to Ex.C10 are the photocopies of certificates of deceased then Ex.C11 is copy of DDR No.13 dated 23.10.2015 recorded at PP Bhai Kera, District Sir Muktsar Sahib and DDR was recorded on the basis of statement of Gurdeep Kaur Ex.C15. In the DDR as well as in the statement of Gurdeep Kaur @ Vandna wife of Vinod Kumar got recorded her statement to the effect that due to occurrence, her sister is admitted in Adesh Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib, the occurrence is natural and all of sudden due to leakage of gas in the kitchen. Gurpreet Kaur switch on the bulb and fire took place. No body is at fault. Similarly in the documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant then in evidence of OP has come on file that cylinder was purchased on 18.10.2015 and it was installed in the kitchen of Vinod Kumar then occurrence took place on 23.10.2015 after about 5 days of the purchase. Neither there is blast of the cylinder nor proved leakage. Complainant counsel in support of his claim relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi order dated 3.10.2006 in a Petition No.289 of 1996, titled as Mrs.Madhuri Govilkar and others Vs. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and others. The law laid down as under;-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g), (f)- Deficiency in service- What amounts to- If there is ‘imperfection’ or ‘shortcoming’ in the quality, which is required to be maintained, it would be defective goods and there would be deficiency in service- L.P.G. cylinder- Supply of – After lighting gas, cylinder was found burning all around in periphery of bottom lip of regulator with dense yellow flames- This would certainly be a manufacturing defect- It was not only imperfect but shortcoming in quality which is required to be maintained for safely of consumers- Death of complainant’s husband after he lit gas stove- Gas Agency, held liable to compensate complainant- Gas Agency can recover amount of compensation from manufacturer- Taking into considering age and income of deceased, compensation of Rs.10,08,000/- is granted”.

20. Further the complainant counsel has relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 4.1.2012 passed in Revision Petition No.3247 of 2011 titled as Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Pyare Lal & Ors. The law laid down as under;-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 15- Gas Cylinder leakage-Damage-Complainant was supplied gas cylinder by OP when seal was removed there broke out a fire due to leakage which caused injuries to the complainant and also burnt other items including furniture of house- District Forum allowed complaint awarding compensation of Rs.3,48,167 payable by OP- State Commission affirmed this order- Revision filed- Held, as petitioner has produced no essential evidence to go against the concurrent findings of the authorities below- Petition deserves dismissal- Impugned order upheld”.

21. In both the authorities the law is laid down that due to leakage of gas cylinder which was supplied by the OPs and when seal was removed there broke out a fire due to leakage which caused injuries. If in the sold cylinder, there was imperfection or shortcoming in the quality which is required to maintain, it would be defect goods and there would be deficiency in service. After lighting gas, cylinder was found burning all around. Both the authorities are not applicable qua the facts in hand and each case has its different facts.

22. To rebut the law referred above OP has relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 23.2.2016 in Revision Petition No.364 of 2016 titled as Sushila Devi Vs. N.K.Cooking Gas Agency & others and relevant portion reproduced:-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 291) (g) – LPG Cylinder- Mechanical examination- Damage caused due to fire broke out due to alleged defective cylinder- Cylinder was not produced before the District Forum with a request to send it for obtaining mechanical opinion as to whether it was defective or not- Held- Since the complainant chose to take delivery of the cylinder from the LPG dealer and install it herself, the onus was upon her to prove that there was a defect in the cylinder supplied to her- Having not produced any such evidence, she failed to discharge the onus placed upon her- Contention of complainant that it was for LPG distributor to request the complainant to make the LPG cylinder available to it for the purpose of enabling it to send the same for mechanical inspection- Contention rejected- Revision petition dismissed”.

23. In the authority referred above, the allegation of the complainant was that damage caused due to fire broke out due to alleged defective cylinder but cylinder was not produced before the District Forum and complaint was dismissed. Even the revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission was also dismissed. In complaint in hand, complainant not placed the defective cylinder at any stage nor made any request. Even not pleaded in the complaint as to what date the cylinder was purchased and how many dates after the purchase occurrence took place. The date of supply was detected by this Forum from the passbook of Vinod Kumar. So, complainants remain unable to prove that deficiency or leakage or imperfection on the part of the OPs.

24. In the light of discussion made above, complaint stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Dated: 25.10.2016.

(Karnail Singh Ahhi)

President

(Meenakshi)

Member

(Mandeep Kaur)

Member