ORDER

16.05.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant no.1 to 4 are the resident of the above mentioned address and were leading the peaceful life before this mishap. It is stated that OP2 is an instrumentality of state and earning huge revenues for the state  due to the state protected monopoly in dealing with non-renewable natural resources. It is further stated that the OP3 the concerned Govt. department is dealing in the matter of petroleum and related petroleum products alongwith L.P.G.
2. It is stated that complainant  no.1 reside at the above mentioned address since 1994. It is further stated that the petitioner no.1 took the gas connection no.606693 from the respondent no.1. Initially both the plots no.512 and 513 belonged to her. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner no.1 renounced the world and in the year 1999, the petitioner no.1 in order to marry her daughter sold the plot no.512. Since then the petitioner no.1 alongwith a son and daughter reside with the petitioner and her children as a Joint Hindu Family with a common kitchen.
3. It is stated that on 30.01.2006 the complainant no.1 was in the native place in Rajasthan alongwith his younger son namely Mohender. The complainant no.2 and 3 alongwith their children were present in the said house. It is further stated that the family cooked meal and took dinner and thereafter went to sleep after switching off all the electrical appliances i.e Regulator of the Gas Cylinder and know of the gas stove. It is stated that in the  dawn of the fateful day on 31.01.2006, the complainant no.2 woke up at about 4 am in the morning as the daughter Kiran was suffering from fever and was asking for water. As soon as the complainant no.2 switched on the light, the entire room engulfed with fire and turned into inferno. It is stated that this happened due to the leakage of LPG Cylinder from its body having no smell which is a deficiency of services on their part.
4. It is stated that the blast was so powerful that two innocent children of the complainant no.2 and 3  named as Neetu and Rekha suffered the burn injuries to the tune of 40% and 65% respectively and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Copy of the OPD card showing the sustaining of 63% injuries by Kumari Rekha aged about 12 years  over her chest, both hands and both legs is filed on record. It is stated that prior to an MLC no.1273 was also prepared by the said hospital. It is further stated that Neetu had sustained 36% burn injuries and injuries were suffered by her over her chest, both hands and both legs. It is stated that an MLC no.1275 was also prepared in this regard. It is further stated that the intimation was also given to the police station Mangol Puri, regarding the above mishap who prepared DD No.5B in this regard. Subsequently, the police handed over the dead bodies to the family members while taking receipts in this regard. Thereafter, the family  members performed the last rites and rituals over the bodies of the deceased and also  spent a sum of Rs.1000/- each over the last rites and rituals of the deceased. It is further stated that both the children were studying in the Govt. schools in 7^th and 6^th class respectively and both were highly intelligents.
5. It is stated that it was the aim and desire and complainant no.2 and 3 to make both their children either a doctor or an engineer and was providing every sort of facilities and both  children were nourishing in the right direction under the guidance and shelter of the  complainant no.2 and 3. It is stated that there was every likelihood that  had the deceased not expired in the above said mishap, both the children would have become either a doctor or an engineer and would have supported the complainant no.2 and 3 at least a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each, otherwise also the daughters are more faithful and loyal towards the parents than the sons and they always come forward to help them in their miseries or incase the  complainant no.2 and 3 suffer from any ailments and would have supported the complainant no.2 and 3 financially also.
6. It is stated that besides the pecuniary losses, the complainant no2 and 3 have also lost love and affection, company and services of the deceased for ever which the deceased were bestowing to them. It is further stated that both the children were  rendering domestic services i.e to help the mother in their kitchen work which pertains to cleaning of the house and washing of the clothes and utensils and if the same are computed in terms of money, the services rendered  by  the deceased arrived to be Rs.2500/- per month. It is further stated that in the era of inflation and devaluation of money every child wants to solemnize the marriage after standing on his legs, therefore, marriage before age of 24 to 25 and the domestic services rendered by deceased would have remained continued by that time.
7. It is stated that complainant no.2 and 3 therefore, assess various damages and expenses for the death of their children including damages for loss of support present and future, damages for the loss of domestic service, damages of loss of love and affection and championship forever, damages on account of mental pain and agony which the complainant no.2 and 3 are suffering and would continue to suffer throughout their lifetime and miscellaneous expenses incurred over medicine and funeral expenses at Rs.5,00,000/- for each deceased. It is further stated that complainant no.2 also suffered burnt injuries to the extent of 40% and her face has become disfigured to a great extent and also suffered burn injuries over her both hands and chest and legs.
8. It is stated that complainant no.2 was first taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and MLC prepared no.1272. It is stated that the hospital was not meant for treating the burnt patient so the family  members decided to shift her to LNJP hospital on the same day. It is further stated that complainant no.2 remained admitted in LNJP hospital from 31.01.2006 to 08.02.2006, thereafter also about ten months remained under treatment. It is stated that complainant no.2 spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- over medicines, doctors fees and special diet. The discharge summary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and LNJP Hospital filed on record. It is further stated that the family members discussed the matter with private doctors for treatment of burn injuries on the face as well as on the hands and legs and the senior doctors had intimated the complainant no.2 that the expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- would come for removing the burn spots by way of surgery but it would not be in position to bring in the natural shape as prior to the accident.
9. It  is stated that due to the burn injuries the movements of the hands and legs have restricted to a great extent due to the burning of veins and complainant no.2 is not in position to do the work herself and employed maid servant for domestic work and continue for lifetime. It is further stated that prior to accident complainant was doing stitching work of the ladies as well as of children clothes of the locality people and adjoining area and was earning Rs.4000/- per month but now due to burn injuries she suffered loss of about 48000/-. It is stated that now the locality women do not visit complainant no.2 for stitching of clothes due to ugly face and even close friends and relatives also shun her company. It is stated that the burn injuries are giving itching  and it becomes very difficult to lead the life just like a normal person. It is stated that the stitching work has been closed on. The complainant  no.2 assess various  damages including the loss of support, present and future, damages on account of mental pain and agony which she is suffering and would  continue to suffer throughout her  lifetime, damages on account of operation charges which she has to bear only on account of this  mishap, damages on account of employing a maid servant who services will remain continued throughout her lifetime, damages of permanent disability, crippleness suffered by complainant and miscellaneous expenses incurred over medicines, doctors fees and special diet at Rs.5,00,000/- only.
10. It is  stated that the household articles were also badly burnt including TV, Fridge and other valuable articles of worth Rs.50,000/- and complainant 2 and 3 are entitled to reimburse the said amount. It is further stated that complainant no.3 also suffered burn injuries to the extent of 35% and MLC no.1270 was also prepared by doctors  of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. It is stated that complainant no.3 suffered the burn injuries mostly over face, both hands and legs and initially admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital which was not meant for treating the burn injury patient therefore referred to LNJP  hospital. It is further stated that complainant no.3 was admitted at LNJP hospital from 31.01.2006 to 0802.2006 and discharged  but thereafter also remained under treatment for about nine months. It is stated that complainant no.3 spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- over medicines and special diet and conveyance.
11. It is stated that complainant no.3 prior to mishap was doing the business of kabadi and earning Rs.6000/- per month. It is further stated that complainant no.3 could not do the work for nine months, therefore, suffered loss in his income and now due to suffering of 35% burn injuries the movement of leg has restricted to a great extent since he used to collect the kabadi items while roaming from  door to door. It is stated that the functioning capacity had reduced to 50% and the house occupants due to his ugly face refused to sell waste items on the false pretext and close their doors while seeing the face and voice. It is stated that his friends and relatives also shun their company and given a social boycott on false and flimsy grounds.
12. It is stated that complainant no.3 would have to pay atleast a sum of Rs.3 to 4 lakh for the surgery of the face and other  burn injuries but doctors informed that he would not get natural shape of the burn injuries areas which was having prior to this mishap. It is further stated that complainant no.3 has already spent his accumulated funds over his treatment as well as the treatment of his wife  and children. The relatives also tendered the financial help. It is stated that complainant no.3 assess various damages and expenses including the damages for  loss of  support, present and future, damages for surgical operation charges, damages on account of mental pain and agony which the complainant no.3 is suffering and would continue to  suffer throughout his life  and the miscellaneous expenses incurred over medicines, doctors fees etc at Rs.3,00,000/-.
13. It is stated that local police despite  registry DD entry did not take appropriate steps of investigation as envisaged under the Explosive Act and Gas Cylinder rules 2004 although the respondent no.4 initially impounded to defective cylinder  but the reasons best known to them their vested interest returned cylinder to the victim family and did not conduct even the mechanical inspection of the cylinder. It is further stated that the gas cylinder was burst from its body parts and in order to corroborate the complainant no.2 and 3 have filed photographs of burst cylinder.
14. It is stated that respondent no1 being the dealer and respondent no.2 being distributor are liable for statutory and contractual liability to take utmost care, precaution and to recheck the cylinder before finally supplied the  cylinder to the consumer. It is further stated that the conduct of respondent no.1 has been fishy in this case. It is stated that complainant no.2 and 3 informed the respondent no.1 about the mishap after two days and respondent no.1 alongwith delivery man in order to conceal the negligency took the cylinder from the house  of victim on 16.03.2006 on the pretext being required by respondent no.2 for mechanical inspection and also issued fresh connection alongwith the cylinder and gas stove in the name of Somwati at F 514 on the same day free of cost without any signature or document from the said Somwati.
15. It is stated  that at the time when the defective cylinder was taken into the possession the daughter and somvati inhabitants Mayadevi w/o Baby Ram resident of F-520   Mangolpuri and Baldev Raj Resident of F-511 Mangolpuri were present and they had acknowledged this face in their statement to the police. It is further stated that the local distributors/agents of these oil companies run after profit and discard all the safety measures of the consumer due to which there are rising incidents of cylinder blast in the city of Delhi. It is stated that respondent no.1 was also requested by complainants to give back the defective blast cylinder since all the documents including the consumer cards of the complainant were destroyed in the fire due to the accident. It is stated that respondent no.1 did not pay attention to the request of complainants and deliricted in his duty as a dealer and also committed the offense of wiping out the evidence in relation to the leakage of gas by the defective cylinder,  therefore, respondent no.1 also comes within the purview of section 201 r/w section 304A IPC.
16. It is stated  that complainant no.2 and 3 are beneficieries of these services as complainant no.1 was residing together with them as there was common kitchen and complainant no.1 is the sister of father of complainant no.3 and since the complainant no.3 was brought up by complainant no.1 so she decided to live with complainant no.3 after the demise of her husband. It is further stated that respondent no.2 is a public  undertaking company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent no.2 earns huge revenues from respondent no.3. It is further stated that respondent no.2 is casted  upon the duty being a LPG supplier to take necessary directions and test in accordance with the rule 44 of Gas Cylinder Rules 2004 and other rules, the empty cylinders goes back for  refilling and suppose to test and defective cylinders are required to be segregated.
17. It is stated that respondent no.2 delericted in its duty cast upon and due to the supply of defective gas cylinder this mishap has occurred. It is further stated that these cylinders are very old in nature and despite of wear and tear in their handling, they are not replaced with the new  one and reused to cut off the expenses and to earn revenue, therefore, respondent no.4 have not complied  with statutory requirements of the Constitution of India, Indian Explosive Act and the Gas Cylinder Rules 2004.
18. It is stated that complainant no.4 Baby Kiran also suffered burn injuries and taken to Sanjay Gandhi  Memorial Hospital which was not meant for treating the burnt patient so referred to LNJP Hospital. It is stated that she suffered burn injuries over his face and other parts of body to the extent of 10%. The discharge summary filed on record. It is further stated that after discharge complainant no.4 treated upto six months and during this period complainant no.2 and 3 spend Rs.30,000/- on medicines, doctors fees, special diet and conveyance. It is stated that the burn injuries would jeopardize her marriage prospect to a great extent and also suffered great mental pain and agony throughout her life. It is further stated that the burn injury and wide scars would not develop her just like a normal person and in case surgery is performed of burned parts it will not cost less than 1,00,000/-. It is stated that the complainant no.4 assess various damages and expenses including damages for loss of marriage prospect, damages on account of mental pain and agony which she is suffering and continue to suffer throughout her lifetime, damages on account of surgery expenses  and miscellaneous expenses incurred over medicine and special diet at Rs.1,00,000/-.
19. It  is stated that respondent no.3  is showing grave dereliction of his duties and trying to hush up the matter. It is stated that the case is progressing just like a snail pace and SHO and IO of the said police station Mangolpuri in connivance with erroring official of the other respondents are trying to turn the whole case futile and protect the accused of their vested interest. It is further stated that the report was lodged to SHO mangolpuri to seize a blast cylinder from the custody of respondent no.1 who had taken the same for mechanical inspection and a legal notice also issued to SHO Mangolpuri. It is further stated that it is the duty of the police station to intimate the Chief Controller by express telegram at Nagpur within 24 hours of the occurrence of the offence and not to touch the debris and wreckage till their arrival. It is stated that Gyarasi Devi had also requested to the SHO in this regard but all proved abortive, similarly Maya Devi and Baldev Raj and Somwati in their separate complaints had also requested to take  appropriate action against respondent no.1. It is stated that a legal notice also issued to pay damages. It is further stated that complainants were maintaining the gas cylinder  properly with due care and with all safety norms as prescribed.
20. The complainants are seeking direction against respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in relation to death of Neetu and Rekha, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in relation to burn injuries and consequential damages suffered by complainant no.2, to pay sum  of Rs.50,000/- for damages caused to household articles, to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to complainant no.3 for burn injuries and consequential damages, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- complainant no.4 for burn injuries and consequential damages, to pay pendalite  and interest @  24% per annum and any other relief which this Hon’ble  forum deem fit and proper may also be granted.
21. OP1 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that there is no cause of action against respondent no.1 and complainant was not a direct consumer of respondent no.1, therefore, complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that gas cylinder in question was issued to Smt. Gyarasi Devi who is the direct consumer of the respondent no.1 and the complainant no.2 and 3 were using the cylinder in question on the date of alleged incident illegally and without any right, therefore, respondent no.1 has no liability against the complainant as they were using the gas connection as well as gas cylinder without any legal right, therefore, complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is stated that present complaint is barred by limitation.
22. It is stated that complainants are not registered consumer  with the respondent no.1 and registered owner Gyarasi Devi and the gas cylinder was supplied at F-512 Mangolpuri New Delhi and this fact is not disclosed by the complainants. It is further stated that complainant did not lodged  any complaint either with the respondent no.1 or other respondents regarding any leakage or malfunctioning in the gas cylinder. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has been following the guidelines issued by the respondent no.2 from time to time and as per the guidelines respondent no.1 has already given the emergency numbers incase of any emergency complaint during 24 hours, but no complaint was received from the complainants even after 15 days from the delivery date.
23. It is stated that respondent no.1 is the only agent of respondent no.2 and supplies the cylinders. It is further stated that the duties of the respondent no.1 is to supply the cylinder to the registered consumer as and when received from respondent no.2. It is stated that respondent no.1 is neither a manufacturer nor having filling or refilling rights of cylinder. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is to supply the gas cylinder to the registered consumer and take care of minor complaints of the registered consumer regarding the gas cylinders and provide maintenance service, therefore, the relationship of respondent no.1 with respondent no.2 is of principle and agent therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
24. It is stated that the complainants were using the cylinder negligently and did not follow the directions of respondent no.2 regarding the use of the cylinder and the alleged incident took place with the negligent handling of the gas cylinder by the complainant, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that respondent no.1 has been following the stringent safety procedure as given by respondent no.2 time to time. It is stated that it is crystal clear that the gas cylinder was delivered to the consumer after applying all the stringent safety procedures as even after 15 days of delivery of cylinder, no  complaint received from the complainants, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
25. It is stated that the respondent no.1 has supplied the gas cylinder to its registered consumer but at the time alleged accident the victims were using the gas cylinder illegally. It is stated that as facts mentioned in the complaint there was no leakage and the said accident has occurred due to the negligence of the users  i.e complainant. It is stated that the respondent no.1 has not been informed about the alleged accident nor an enquiry conducted by the police officials nor any report from the fire department, therefore, there is no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is stated that there is no privity of contract of the complainant with the respondent no.1 and no consideration has passed from the complainants to respondent no.1 directly and complainants were illegal, unwarranted user of gas cylinder in question, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
26. It is stated that New India Assurance Company is a necessary party in the present case as the respondent has taken insurance policy in the event of any legal liability, therefore, there is no cause of action against respondent no.1. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties.
27. On merit all the allegations are denied and facts mentioned in the preliminary objections are reiterated.
28. Complainant filed  rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint. It is stated that complainant is not a direct consumer but if he is beneficiary of services than covered within the definition of consumer as per CP  Act. It is further stated that Smt. Gyarasi Devi was residing with the complainants no.1 to 4 as Joint Hindu Family with the common kitchen and Gyarasi Devi is sister of Sh. Shiv kumar who had brought up the said Shiv kumar and the husband of complainant no.1 renounced the world in the year 1999, thereafter she is residing alongwith other complainant.
29. It is stated that on 30.01.2006 the complainant no.1 was in the native place in Rajasthan alongwith younger son namely Mahender and unfortunately the abovesaid incident had taken place as the said cylinder burst when the complainant no.2 switched on the light and whole of the room turned into inferno and this happened due to the leakage of LPG cylinder from its body which is deficiency of service on the part of OP. It is further stated that as the old cylinders were utilized for filling up purposes and they were not replaced with the original one whose body was worn out, therefore, the complainants no.2 and 4 were having the legal right to use that cylinder as they all were residing together under one shelter and were using the common kitchen.
30. It is stated that cylinder was in a bad shape and leakage has taken place as its body started cracking after one day of the delivery resulting in abovesaid mishap. It is further stated that the said cylinder when supplied to the complainant was not checked up by the delivery man and false and frivolous defense has been taken to escape the claim liability. It is stated that when the blast had taken place the cylinder started leaking from its body and gas started accumulated in the kitchen and there was no smell when the light was switched on to take the water for ailing daughter of complainant no.2 and the incident had taken place and photographs filed on record itself reveals that the cylinder had burst from its body which prima facie shows that the body of the said cylinder was in a bad shape and there is no negligence on the part of complainants.
31. It is stated that the facts emerged on record the principle of “resipsa loquitor”  and absolute liability are clearly cut applicable in the instant case as the respondents are dealing with hazardous things. It is stated that the Supreme Court in, “Sri Ram Gas Fertilizer” case observed that in such kind of cases, “deep pocket theory” should be adopted and the guilty party has to pay according to its capacity and not account of loss suffered by the complainant. It is further stated that under the law of torts, all the agents and manufacturers are liable even though there is no privity of contract with the complainant even if he is ultimately beneficiary of the services. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of  the insurance policy the respondent no.4 the New India Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
32. OP2 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that there is no cause of action against respondent no.2 and present complaint filed after expiry limitation and complainants have no locus stani to file the presnet complaint, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that there is no relationship between respondent no.2 and complainant. It is further stated that the relationship between respondent no.2 is on principle to principle basis and as per the dealership agreement entered between HPCL and the dealer i.e OP1 therefore, as per clause 18 of  the agreement OP2 cannot be held liable.
33. It is stated that as per information received from OP1 the victims namely Smt. Somwati and Mr. Nanhe were not the registered customer ofOP1 and it appears that the alleged accident has occurred due to gross negligence of victims. It  is stated that OP2 has no responsibility or liability for the alleged accident and no specific role has been attributed to OP2. It is further stated that OP2 has not been informed about the alleged incident which according to the complainant took place on 31.01.2006 nor any enquiry was conducted by the police officials and no report from fire department, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
34. It is stated that the cylinders are supplied to the dealers by the corporation after following stringent safety procedures, however, still it is the  duty of the dealer if there is any defect or leakage in any cylinder at the time of receiving the same from  the corporation and also checking each and every cylinder for weight and any leakage at the premises of customer at the time  of delivery. It is further stated that there is no privity of contract  of the complainant with respondent no.2 and no consideration has been passed from complainant to respondent no.2, therefore, present complaint is liabel to be dismissed. It is stated that New India Assurance Company is the necessary party in the present case as the OP2 has taken insurance policy in the event of any legal liability and copy of insurance policy filed on record. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is under an obligation to have a  LPG Multi Perils Policy and policy received from respondent no.1 filed on record. It is stated that complaint is bad for misjoinder  of respondent no.3 is not a necessary party. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
35. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that OP2 has been selling LPG on highly subsidized rates to the general public  with a view to sub serve the common good. It is further stated that as per information received from OP1 gas consumer no.606693 since 1994 at the address F-512 Mangolpuri New Delhi. It is further stated that OP2 received undated and unsigned legal notice from Sh. Sanjeev Mehta Advocate sent on behalf of Smt. Somwati and Sh. Nanhe only on 17.01.2008, this conduct on the part of complainants clearly demolish the story of the complainant as till 17.01.2008 the complainants never informed OP2 about the alleged accident allegedly occurred on 31.01.2006 and is also raises suspicion on the complainant.
36. It is stated that respondent no.2 has most modern LPG bottling plant with automatic electronic carousel for bottling of cylinders  alongwith state of art technology, quality check equipments and all possible steps are being taken strictly to ensure that no defective cylinder is dispatched to distributors. It is further stated that all cylinders are subjected to rigorous quantity and quality control, checks cylinders failing in the same are segregated and only cylinders passing in these tests are finally dispatched to the market. It is stated that no information was ever received about the said accident by respondent no.2. It is stated that now after period  of more than two years the complainant has come up with a story with a view to extract money which is really unfortunate and illegal. It is stated that respondent no.2 is a renouned government company and follows strict norms as suggested under the law. It is stated that complainant has no basis to say that cylinder if any supplied to her by respondent no.1 was defective. It is further stated that complainant has nowhere stated that alleged cylinder had any leakage and from the own statement of complainant alleged victims used the cylinder and prepared meal on it, therefore, cylinder was in good condition.
37. It is stated that the alleged accident if any might have occurred due to mishandling, it is further stated that the respondent no.2 has most modern LPG bottling plant with automatic electronic carousel for bottling of cylinders. It is stated that all the cylinders subjected to rigorous quantity and quality control check. It is stated that once the filled cylinders are delivered at distributor godowns, thereafter, as per the policy guidelines of the corporation at the time of receipt of the cylinders the distributors are required to carry out random checks on minimum 10% cylinders unloaded from the trucks for correct weight, body leak, bung leak etc. It is stated that if cylinders are found beyond the permissible limit of the weight and/or body/bung leak than these cylinders are segregated and sent back to filing plant in the same load or subsequently. It is stated that before the cylinders are taken out for delivery to the consumer, the distributor is also mandatorily required to carry out 100% checks like weighing of filled cylinder before delivery at customer residence and check for leakage etc and unmarketable cylinders are to be returned to the filling plant concerned.
38. It is stated that surprise checks are also carried out on the distributors by the filed officers of the corporation and on their delivery boys to ensure that only correct weight and leak free cylinders are delivered to customer. It is further stated that penal action is taken against the erroring distributors, distributorship agreements. It is stated that during delivery at the customers delivery, chances of underweight/leak cylinder being delivered to a customer is very remote and customer is entitled to satisfy himself/herself regarding the correct weight and leakage at the time of delivery of the LPG refill and incase of observing of  any defect or less  weight or leakage the customer shall return such cylinder immediately for replacement. It is stated that even at the time of each refill a refill cash memo is made out by the distributor which contains a specific representation “checked weight before delivery” and specific instructions on the reverse, “kindly check the cylinder and please do not take the delivery without refill cash memo”.
39. It is stated that the LPG cylinders are checked for correct weight at three stages  i.e at plants, at distributorship and at customer’s premises before making actual delivery. It is further stated that respondent no.2 has been following/complying all statutory requirements of the Constitution of India, Indian Explosive Act and the Gas Cylinder Rules 2004. It is further stated that an undated, unsigned legal notice was received by respondent no.2 on 1701.2008 and same was replied by respondent no.2 to the complainant advocate on 23.02.2008 through speed post and the copies are filed on record. It is stated that if the complainant or victims would have maintained the gas cylinder properly with due care and with all safety norms as prescribed as claimed in the complaint than there were no chances of any such alleged accident taking place unless some serious mishandling is done by the complainants for which no information ever received by respondent no.2. It is stated that present complaint is false baseless suspicious and liable to be dismissed.
40. Complainant filed  rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint. It is stated that the LPG cylinder was having manufacturing defect which had happened due to non properly monitoring when the cylinder or preparing for refilling. It is stated that complaint could be filed within a period of years from the date of cause of action or from the date when the claim was repudiated by respondent. It is stated that the inter se arrangement between the company and the distributor and the dealers are not binding upon consumers and for the deficiency of cylinder complainant can recover the damage amount from any one of them or from all of them. It is stated that principle of law of torts are prima facie applicable in the instant and the consumer protection act is one of the species of the law of torts.
41. It is stated that the intimation of accident was given to the police as well as to the dealer. It is further stated that before filing of the claim when complainant came to know that intimation have to be given to respondent no.2 the complainant served notice through his counsel. It is further stated that the discrepancies pointed out by OP2 in the legal notice were removed by giving another notice. It is stated that there is no prerequisite requirement to give the notice under the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that to take the fire report is the duty of the police under the law as all are governmental agencies  and the complainant cannot press to file the same.
42. It is stated that it is matter of knowledge that the said cylinder is having outlet from which the gas passes through and the same is blocked with the help of pin and rubber part inserted in it. It is further stated that sometime the pin as well as the rubber is cut when regulator is put on the said pin and the said pin started leaking the gas due to defect in the pin and rubber part and it is not necessary that it may happen immediately on the first day, it may happen also on the next two to three days or some more days due to inferior quality of the pin and rubber part of the knob which blocks the gas to come out and when it broke down the gas started leaking. It is stated that nobody can predict such deficiency and the consumer always remain at the receiving hands which is using the defective cylinder as he cannot see or anticipate such kind of leakage. It is stated that smell can be anticipated as if some perfume is added in the gas so that whenever it leaks it is anticipated by the noise but if the perfume is not added than leakage of gas cannot be anticipated the same had also happened in the instant case.
43. It is stated that no delivery man has checked the knob containing the pin and rubber while giving the said cylinder to the consumer. It is stated that as these delivery man are in a very haste to supply the cylinder and never checked the safety measures as they had to supply the cylinders at 50-60 places at a stretch. It is stated that dealer also did not check as generally these dealers supplied the maximum in black marketing to the sweet shops and tea seller shop keepers as the margin is very less and by adopting these illegal means the profit are earning as there is huge different in the price of consumer and black marketing price. It is stated that dealer never checked the safety measures. The complainant referred the case of Donge Vs. Stephenson. It is stated that the manufactures is responsible to the ultimate consumers and beneficiaries and all are jointly and severally liable towards the complainant. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
44. OP3 as per order dated 22.04.2009 served, however, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.08.2011 and no WS filed as per record.
45.  As per record vide order dated 10.08.2011 New India Assurance Company impleaded as OP4. It is pertinent to mention here that a new counsel engaged by OP4 Sh. Pulkit Chaudhary who failed to apprise the commission that OP4 had already filed WS and proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28.03.2024. However, as per record OP4 filed WS. OP4 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable be dismissed as such as no cause of action has been disclosed against the answering respondent. It is stated that the present complaint if frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the said complaint is barred by time as the alleged accident occurred on 31.01.06 and the complaint has been filed after expiry of limitation period.
46. It is stated that the complaint is false and baseless as the answering respondent has  not been informed about the accident which is alleged to have taken place on 31.01.06. It is further stated that no enquiry has been conducted by the police officials not any report from the Fire Department has been filed. Thus the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, hence the same is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. It is  stated  that the complaint involves complex issues which require detailed investigation and interpretation of policy clause and general contract, hence the consumer court has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is stated that insurance is contract like any other general contract and terms of the contract are binding on both the parties. This has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments viz. United India Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005 ACJ 570: National Insurance Co. Vs Anjana Shyam 2007 ACJ 2129, etc, New India Vs. Kamla 2002 ACC 346 and Oriental Insurance Vs Prithvi Raj 2008 ACJ 733.
47. On merit all  the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP4 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections.
48. Complainant no.2 filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant no.2 relied on Post Mortem reports MIC’s and other medical documents Ex.CW1/1-9, the police documents Ex.CW1/11-12, photograph Ex.CW1/10, statement of Baldev Raj and Maya Devi given to police Ex.CW1/13-14, Legal notice to SHO, IO, Commissioner of Police and to respondents alongwith UPC and regd. AD Ex.CW1/15-26 and authorization Ex.CW1/27. Somwati also filed supplementary evidence and relied on documents Ex.CW1/27-41 pertaining to the police proceedings and receiving of dead body and Neetu and Rekha vide receipt Ex.CW1/40-41.
49. Complainant Gyarasi Devi also filed an affidavit.
50. Maya Devi also filed an affidavit and relied  on statement given to police Ex.C3/1.
51. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Tarun Jain. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP1 relied on application form of complainant Ex.RW1/1, and copy of insurance policy Ex.RW1/2.
52. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Rakesh Gupta Senior Regional Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP2 relied on copy of agreement Ex.OP2/A, copy of  insurance policy Ex.OP2/B and copy of insurance  of OP1 Ex.OP2/C.
53. OP4 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Suresh Dudeja. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP4 relied on insurance policy Ex.R1.
54. Written arguments filed by complainant. Written arguments filed by respondent no.1, respondent no.2.
55. We  have heard Ms. Aruna Mehta and Sh. Sanjeev Mehta counsels for complainant and Sh. Neeraj Panday proxy for Sh. Ravi Rai counsel  for OP2 and gone through the written arguments filed by parties.
56. The complainant Gyarasi Devi, Smt. Somwati, Sh. Nanhe and Baby Kiran being minor filed the present complaint. The OP1 taken the objection that Smt. Gyarasi Devi complainant no.1 is the consumer of OP1 and not complainant no.2 and 3. OP2 also taken the objection that complainant no.2 Somwati and complainant no.3 Nanhe were not the registered customer of OP1. The OP2 specifically taken the stand that Smt. Gyarasi Devi complainant no.1 is the customer of OP1 with gas consumer no.606693 since 1994 at F-512 Mangol Puri New Delhi. The complainant admitted the fact that the gas connection no.606693 was taken by complainant no.1 Gyarasi Devi and 512-513 both belong to her initially. The complainant further alleged that the husband Sh. Ram Chander of complainant no.1 renounced the world in the year 1999 and plot no.512 was sold for marriage of her daughter and she resides alongwith son and daughter and her children as Joint Hindu Family with a common kitchen. The complainant also alleged that all her documents destroyed in the incident of cylinder blast dated 30.01.2006. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not explained in the complaint as well as in the rejoinder to WS of OP1 and OP2 how complainant no.1to 4 forms a Joint Hindu Family. The complainant no.1 has not explained the relationship with complainant no.2 and 3. It is also vital when complainant no.1 admitted that she had sold her house no. F-512 but failed to mention the name of the purchaser and the fact whether the purchaser is residing at the address  of not. The complainant no.1 admitted that she is residing at F-513 Mangol Puri New Delhi but as a registered consumer of OP1 her address is F-512. The complainant no.1 has not explained and given any documentary proof that after sale of F-512 she got changed her address as a customer of OP1 of connection no.606693 more specifically she had not mentioned the year of sale of F-512. Admittedly, complainant no.1 remained the customer of OP1 having resident  address of F-512 although she had already sold it and never got changed her address as F-513.
57. The complainant no.1 in the rejoinder to the WS of OP1 stated that Gyarasi Devi is the sister of Shiv Kumar and after 1999 when her husband renounced the world she has been residing with complainant no.2 and 3. Complainant no.3 is the son of Shiv Kumar and complainant no.2 is his wife and complainant no.4 is the minor daughter. As per this relation Nanhe is the nephew of complainant no.1. As per Joint Hindu Family nephew and his wife do not form Joint Hindu Family. The joint  hindu family has been formed by the real brother and sister alongwith father and mother as per well established principle of hindu law. The complainant no.1 alongwith complainant no.2 and 3 does not form Joint Hindu Family this allegation is not in accordance with the well settled principle of hindu law.
58. Now applying the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines complainant and consumer. As per section 2(b) “complainant means

1. A consumer; or

(iv) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative who or which makes a complaint.

Section2(d) “consumer” means any person who-

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes.

59. Now applying the above provisions of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case complainant no.1 Gyarasi Devi is the complainant being registered consumer of OP1 gas connection 606693 and entitled to receive the gas cylinder. The complainant no.2 to 4 are not having any contract with OP1 for gas connection and also not having any legal right to pay the consideration for delivery of gas cylinder. Complainant no.2 to 4 also not part of Joint Hindu Family as alleged by complainant no.1. The complainant no.1 had entered into an agreement with OP1 for gas connection and delivery of gas cylinders. The transfer  of gas cylinder without the knowledge and permission of the OP1 and 2 is not legal in case complainant no.1 allowed and transfer the gas connection 606693 to complainant no.2 and 3 for using and refilling of gas cylinder that is not permissible under the contract of gas connection, therefore, the transfer of use of gas connection by complainant no.2 and 3 specially in the absence of complainant no.1 and at address F-513 has taken out the complainant no.2 to 4 from the definition of consumer as well as complainant. The complainant no.1 is the consumer and real complainant in the present case. The complainant no.1 admitted the fact as per her affidavit dated 07.02.2012 that at the time of the alleged incident on30.01.2006 she was at her native place in Rajasthan alongwith her younger son Mahinder. This fact is further corroborated with affidavit of Maya Devi, vide her affidavit dated 07.02.2012. However, in the legal notice to IO Ex.CW1/15 and to the Chief Comptroller of Explosive Ex.CW1/19 it was mentioned that Gyarasi Devi left for her family village to attend the marriage ceremony. In the legal notice Ex.CW1/22 mentioned as some function. The marriage ceremony is not mentioned  in the facts stated in the complaint.
60. On the basis of above observation and discussion the complainant no.2 to 4 are not consumer of OP1 and 2 and they have no legal right to use the gas connection issued in the name of complainant no.1.
61. The complainants alleged the incident on 31.01.2006 wherein complainant no.2, 3 and 4 were present at house no.513 and in the dawn of complainant no.2 woke up at about 4 am in the morning as daughter complainant no.4 was suffering from fever and asking for water. The complainant no.2 switched on the light then entire room engulfed with the fire and turned into inferno and this happened due to leakage of LPG cylinder. In the complaint it was added with pen that there was no smell which is a deficiency of service. It is further alleged by the complainant that OP no.2 supplied defective gas cylinder. The OP1 and 2 denied all these allegations and explained how the cylinder in question supplied after following the guidelines issued by OP1 and an emergency no. also given for making complaint in case of leakage of gas during 24 hours. OP2 being the manufacturer  of the gas cylinder also explained the procedure of filing of the LPG gas cylinders and supplying after following the due process of checking and segregating the cylinders on the basis of rigorous quality and control checks. The OP1 and 2 alleged that they did not supply defective gas cylinder and the alleged incident took place due to the negligence on the part of complainants.
62. In the rejoinder to WS of OP1 complainants reiterated the fact that the alleged incident happen due to leakage of LPG cylinder.The OP no.1 in the written statement specifically stated that gas cylinder was supplied 15 days prior to alleged incident and complainant in the rejoinder did not rebut or objected to the same. The complainant Somvati in her evidence also not rebutted this fact. The complainant further alleged that the cylinder in question was  in a bad shape and not fit to refill the gas and safety norms were ignored. The complainant did not mention these facts in the complaint and made tremendous improvement in the rejoinder. In the rejoinder to WS of OP2 the complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the LPG cylinder. This is for the first time the plea of manufacturing defect taken by complainant in the rejoinder. The complainants have not pleaded this vital fact in the complaint that the gas cylinder involved in the alleged incident was having manufacturing defect. The complainants have not discussed a single word defining what kind of manufacturing defect  observed by them at the time of delivery of the gas cylinder. The gas cylinder was used by complainant for about 15 days after the delivery of the LPG cylinder then how the manufacturing defect was not noticed for 15 days and mentioned in the complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that drastic improvement made in the rejoinder where explanation has been observed how the regulator has works and turn out to be defective which result in the leakage of the gas. The complainants due to best reasons known to them have not stated a single word with regard to any defect in the regulator of the LPG cylinder which causes leakage of the gas.
63. The complainants also put up theory that a deliverymen delivers at a stretch to 50-60 places  and not in position to check each and every gas cylinder whether it is leaking or not. The complainants also highlights the theory of black marketing of gas cylinders to the sweet shops and tea sellers but failed to establish any relation with the alleged incident and black marketing of gas cylinder. In the complaint no role has been mentioned of the new purported theory in the alleged incident. It is of common knowledge to all the customers of the LPG gas cylinders which includes  illiterates and literates that the LPG gas carries a particular odour/smell in each and every gas cylinder. In case of leakage for few seconds one can detect because of special odour/smell of the LPG gas that there may some leakage of the gas. In case of leakage it is very difficult not to detect out the said odour/smell of the LPG gas. The complainants have not explained that as per their allegations when there was a leakage throughout the night then how they did not feel or able to detect the special odour/smell of the leaked gas.It is pertinent to mention that Somvati in her affidavit added with “pen” “no smell”. It is also not explained that how it is possible that after the delivery of the gas cylinder for about 15 days on daily basis there was leakage of gas and not detected by complainant specially while making meals or breakfast or tea etc three or four times in a day when LPG gas stove must have been used by complainant. These crucial facts points out towards the alleged negligence on the part of complainants when they use the LPG gas cylinder for 15 days after the last delivery before the alleged incident.
64. As per complaint the alleged incident took place on 31.01.2006 at about 4am in the morning and a police complaint to police without delay with DD entry 5D/31.01.2006. As per legal notice Ex.CW1/16 sent to IO it was mentioned that the gas cylinder was seized on the same day but later on released. According to Ex.CW1/29 a report prepared by SI Vijay Singh relied by complainant of the alleged incident in which it is mentioned that “during night suddenly the girl Kiran age 6 years vomited and when complainant no.2 Nanhe switched on the electric switch than in the room fire erupted due to leakage of gas from the gas cylinder and switching on the electric switch from which electric spark and which resulted in blast of gas cylinder”.
65. The complainant filed a legal notice written to the Chief Comptroller Explosive Nagpur Maharashtra, in this notice complainant alleged that the cylinder was defective and termed as defective cylinder involved in the alleged incident. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the client in not mentioned in the notice. Another legal notice sent to OPs on behalf of complainant no.2 and 3 dated January 2008. In this notice it is specifically alleged that the daughter kiran complainant no.3 was suffering from fever and asked for water and when complainant no.3 switched on the light the entire house engulfed with fire and turned into inferno. This all has happened due to leakage of LPG gas from the body of the cylinder. In para 8 it is mentioned that the mischief had entirely occurred due to supply of old gas cylinder whose body was not intact and the blast had taken place due to leakage of cylinder from the body. It is pertinent to mention here that with regard to condition of the gas cylinder two different facts have been mentioned by complainants in above discussed in two legal notices. The legal notice January 2008 does not mention about defective gas cylinder whereas legal notice to Chief Comptroller of Explosive mentioned about defective cylinder. This established that correct facts have  not been pleaded by complainants. It is also pertinent to mention here that legal notice  January 2008 corroborates the facts of Ex.CW1/29. In the complaint complainants neither mentioned that the gas cylinder was old. The complainants have stated the facts in the rejoinder as discussed hereinabove which are neither pleaded in the complaint or in legal notices and made tremendous improvements.
66. In order to establish that the gas cylinder was defective the onus is on the complainant. The complainants have taken the plea that they had orally informed the OP2 about the alleged incident. The police also did not take into possession the gas cylinder after the alleged incident and even after issuing a notice to investigation officer. The complainants admitted that the gas cylinder remained in their possession till 16.03.2006. It is alleged by the complainants that on 16.03.2006 the respondent no.1 alongwith delivery man came alongwith fresh connection and gas cylinder  and gas stove in the name of Somwati at F-514 and given to her without signatures free of cost. It is admitted by complainants that the gas cylinder remained in their possession for about two months but they have not made any attempt to hand over to the concerned officials or take any steps for inspection of the gas cylinder although a legal notice 06.04.2006 was sent to IO in this regard. There is no report by the fire department and also from any authority with regard to the condition of the gas cylinder. There is no material on record to establish that the gas cylinder was old and defective.
67. The present complaint filed on 01.02.2008, admittedly the alleged incident took place on 31.01.2006, the OP1 and 2 had taken specifically that present complaint is barred by limitation. Ld counsel for complainant in the written arguments initially filed has not taken any plea to explain whether present complaint is within limitation, however when list of judgments filed on 23.04.2024 wherein it is mentioned that  the last date of limitation was 31.01.2008 and no entry was maintained by the registry and this commission denied the complainant to file affidavit in this regard and complaint was filed on 30.01.2008. As per section 24A of CP Act, 1986 the limitation period for filing complaint is within two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, the complainant is filed on 01.02.2008. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants got issued legal notice to OPs which was sent through registered post and UPC on 14.01.2008. As per OP2 the legal notice was received on 17.01.2008. The complainants for the first time issued legal notice to OPs after 15 days prior to two years. As per record the present complaint is filed after expiry of two years from the cause of action. The complainant as per section 24A(2) have not filed any application to show the sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years for condoning the delay if any. We are of considered opinion that present complaint is barred by limitation.
68. The ld. Counsel for  complainant referred the judgment of Madhuri Govilka & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors. IV (2006) CPJ 338. We  have gone through the judgment. This judgment is distinguishable  in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case the alleged incident took place after 15 days of the delivery of the gas cylinder and complainant never raised any complaint that gas cylinder  supplied was old and defective. In the referred case there was a occasion of replacement of regulator. However in the present case no regulator has been replaced. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on judgment of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Hagi Latif & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1413. We have gone through the judgment. Ld. Counsel for  complainant wish to shift the onus on OP for producing the best evidence with regard to supply of gas cylinder. However, the complainants never raised any dispute with regard to date of supply of gas cylinder, therefore, this judgment is also distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of this case.
69. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on judgment of Khatri & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1068. According to this judgment statement under section 161 given to police can be looked into by this civil proceedings. The counsel relied on  statement of complainant no.2 Somwati Ex.CW1/32. The relevant portion as stated in written argument filed on 23.04.2004 is “it seems that one gas  cylinder become empty in the night and the gas leaked in the night from extra filled second cylinder which was also in the room”. The statement under section 161 is contrary to the legal notice issued on behalf of complainants and also detailed facts mentioned in the complaint. This statement completely demolishes the complaint because complainants nowhere stated that there were two cylinders in the room at the alleged day of the incident. It seems that the complainants have concealded the true and material facts from this commission.
70. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on judgment of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Late Om Prakash (NC). Hereinabove we have already discussed in detail that complainant no.1, 2 and 3 does not form Joint Hindu Family. They are not having blood relation as brother sister or son daughter of one father mother. Therefore, this judgment is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of this case. Ld. Counsel relied on judgment of Urmila Panday Vs. Khalil Ahmed 1994 ACJ 805 SC. As per record the insurance company was impleaded as party vide order dated 10.08.2011 after three years of the proceedings specially when OP1 and 2 pointed out that they have taken insurance policy of New India Insurance Company Ltd. It is pertinent to mention here that lastly the counsel Pulkit Choudhary engaged by insurance company OP4 was not aware of the facts that insurance company has already been impleaded party and filed WS as well as evidence filed on record, therefore, he created confusion being ignorant of the proceedings and newly engaged counsel. The insurance company was impleaded timely and contested the present complaint case, therefore, the referred judgment is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
71. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on judgment of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635. We have gone  through this judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that retired judge of Supreme court/High court is competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts including allegations of negligence of experts. However, there is no observation with regard to District Commissions. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed the Government to provide necessary infrastructure for proper implementation of the Act. However, these directions are not being complied. The District Commission is not well equipped for proper implementation of the Act till today. The CP Act, 1986 provides the power to the District Commission as for as examination of witnesses and examination by commission. In this case OP did not invoke the provision for examination of witnesses. It is pertinent  to mention here that the fundamental principle of law is that complainant has to prove the case while standing on his or her legs.
72. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on judgment of Mother & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) 1 SCC 264. In the present case OP admitted the  service of notice on 17.01.2008 so there is not dispute with regard to service of notice, however the legal notice does not bear the date of issuance. Ld. Counsel further relied on judgment of V.K Jain Vs. Sharad Jagtiani 2006 SCC online Delhi 859. The OP2 received the legal notice so there is no dispute with regard to service of notice through UPC. In the present fact and circumstances of the case neither complainant nor OP proved the fact when the gas  cylinder was  supplied to complainants prior to incident dated 30/31.06.2006. In the complaint, legal notice to SHO PS Mangol Puri and legal notice  to OPs the complainants have not taken the stand that the gas cylinder was supplied one day prior to the alleged  incident. It is pertinent to mention here that the statement of Somwati Ex.CW1/32 wherein she stated “ऐसा लगता है कि कमरे में गैस सिलेंडर जो रात को खाली था तथा दूसरा भरा हुआ था मे से रिश कर  कमरे में फेल गई और बिजली जलने से आग लग गई.”. As per this admission of Somwati there were two cylinders in the house not one and she did not claimed that the gas cylinder was supplied one day prior to incident. As per complainant own admission the information was given to OP  after two days of the alleged incident, therefore, in these circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn.
73. On the basis of above observations and discussions the complainants Somwati, Nanhe and Baby Kiran are not consumer and there is no consumer dispute. The complainants also failed to establish defective or old gas cylinder supplied which resulted in gas leakage and the alleged occurrence of incident due to deficiency of service/negligence on the part of OP1 and 2. The present complaint is barred by limitation, Hence present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
74. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  16.05.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                               NIPUR CHANDNA                         

       PRESIDENT                                                                           MEMBER