The case of the complainant is that she has taken a LPG connection from the opposite party no. 1 for domestic purpose being consumer no. 89731654 and the said connection is BPL connection and the complainant has been using the said connection for a long time. It is pertinent to mention that the elder son of the complainant has been residing with his family member at the same house but in separate mess and he has been enjoying gas connection of the opposite party company at the registered place i.e. at the kitchen and both the kitchen  situates at the adjacent rooms. That on 15.2.2018 in the morning the complainant along with her husband went to the market and the wife of the elder son of the complainant was busy with her household works including cooking at her separate kitchen. Certainly at about 10 a.m. the daughter in law of the complainant smelt some pungent smell of gas leakage and before she could identify the cause of such smell within few seconds the LPG cylinder of her kitchen caught fire and turn to blast and immediately the fire spread to the other rooms and to the kitchen of the complainant and the cylinder of the kitchen of the complainant also exploded and due to such massive blast of two cylinders the ceiling of the house of the complainant fall down and the entire house gutted by fire and the entire house hold articles, important documents, TV, refrigerator, and one bike were also ruined by fire. Thereafter the complainant and her husband rush to their house and the local people also assembled before the house of the complainant for rescue and after few hours two engines of fire brigade ultimately controlled the fire. After the incident the complainant and her family members contacted the opposite party no. 1, company and requested them to take necessary steps so that the complainant could be compensated but opposite party no. 1 did not pay any heed to the same rather asked the complainant for bringing the damaged cylinder to them and assured the complainant for providing a new cylinder and regulator free of cost and also advised the complainant to renovate her house at her own cost and also disclosed that there is no provision of getting any compensation from the oil company and also explained the fact of leakage of cylinder as a common technical defects of gas cylinders. Soon after the incident husband of the complainant made a written complaint to the local Dhaniakhali P.S. being GDE no.728 of 2018 dt. 15.2.2018 but till date no enquiry has been made by the concerned authority. Since then the complainant compelled to take shelter at the nearby club room at the mercy of the local villagers and the complainant has to suffer a huge pecuniary loss. The accident caused due to leakage of gas cylinder and leakage was caused due to defect in the cylinder supplied by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 but inspite of knowing such incident the opposite party no. 1 who is the dealer of the opposite party no. 2 did not take any initiative to compensate the complainant which tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and for which the complainant has suffered huge monetary loss along with mental agony, anxiety and harassment. So, the complainant being a bondfide customer of the opposite party is entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost from the opposite parties for causing severe mental agony, anxiety, harassment upon her.

The opposite party No. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that catching fire in the LPG cylinder in the kitchen and blasting of the cylinders and spreading of fire to the other rooms and exploding of cylinders and damaging of the ceiling of the house of the complainant and entire household articles was gutted by fire and important documents, TV, refrigerator, one bike were ruined due to fire all allegations are totally false, vague and made for the purpose of harassment and in this connection the complainant has not produced any expert report or any information about damage of the articles as stated by her and the complainant informed the entire incident on 15.2.2018 to the opposite party no. 1 and the gas authority has made mandatory checking by authorized mechanic as per ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Govt. of India vide D.O. no. P390-14/1/86-MKT dt. 14.4.1988 in the house of the consumer and the complainant has not given any written complaint to the gas authority regarding the leakage of gas cylinder immediately when she smelt a pungent smell of gas leakage so due to negligence of the complainant the accident took place and the entire household articles were damaged. It is also stated that the complainant never applied to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for mandatory checking of the cylinders or gas oven and the complainant has not filed any report of fire brigade to show that opposite party no. 1 is responsible for the accident and fire and damage of her house and inspite of helping the complainant and trying to mitigate the sufferings of the complainant, the complainant has filed this case in order to create pressure upon the opposite party no. 1 so the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for and the opposite party no. 1 prayed to dismiss the instant case with cost.

The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that no information was provided as to the alleged incident to the opposite party no. 2 and the alleged incident came to the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 after receipt of notice of this case and thus the probable incident, even if it had occurred, reasons cannot be ascertained after lapse of such a long period of time and on receipt of the notice  the opposite party no. 2 immediately sent the concerned officer to visit the house of the complainant where the alleged incident took place and it was found that the complainant received a cylinder on 7.2.2018 being delivered by the delivery man of the distributorship and on 6.2.2019 the cylinder was received and the opposite party no. 2 has availed cover of insurance relating to the insurance of third party risk from the insurance company ICICI Lombard General Insurance being policy no. 4008/130680523/00/000 for the period 2.5.2017 to 1.5.2018 and the insurance company has been notified about the alleged incident on 16.5.2019 and the insurance company was requested to sent a surveyor and initiate process as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and opposite party no. 2 on 1.6.2004 entered into an agreement i.e. Bharat Gas (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) distributorship(domestic and commercial)agreement with Smt. Sananda Banerjee, the opposite party no.1 herein and engaged her as a distributor for sale of corporations liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in cylinders only for household consumers and commercial consumers and run the distributorship in the name and style of “M/S Dhaniakhali Gas and Appliances”, the opposite party no. 1.

            The relationship between the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 1 being M/S Dhaniakhali Gas and Appliances is on principal to principal basis and that the opposite party no. 1 does not act as an agent of the opposite party no. 2 or on account of the opposite party no.2. Clause 17 of the Distributorship agreement dt. 1.6.2004 inter alia, states that in all contracts or engagement into by the distributor with the customers for sale of LPG and/ or the sale and/ or installation and/ or repairs of appliances and/ or connections thereof with LPG cylinder (filled or empty) and/ or refills and/ or pressure regulators and/ or attached equipment the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the corporation and the corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/ or engagements and/ or in respect of any act or omission on the part of the distributor, his servants, agents and workmen in regard to such installation, sale distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 cannot be responsible for alleged incident. The responsibility of the opposite party no. 2 comes to an end as soon as the cylinders are delivered at the premises of distributors i.e. the opposite party no. 1 and from then onwards distributor is liable and has to take all the care and caution. There is no direct relationship between the complainant and the opposite party no. 2 as consumer and provider of service as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In the subscription voucher it is stated that the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the distributor alone is responsible, if any for any claim arising there from and the opposite party no. 2 i.e. BPCL cannot be made liable for the same. Clause 11 of the subscription voucher clearly stated that company shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to any person or property as a result of the installation and/ or use of the gas by the consumer. In the event of any accident involving the consumer’s installation he shall forthwith inform the distributor. The opposite party no. 2 further states that:

1. The cylinders are manufactured by BIS approved manufactures under the supervision of the oil companies. Each cylinder is subjected to pressure test and treatments as per BTS norms. It is fitted with a high precession self closing valve.
2. The pressure regulator is fitted on the valve, and it has got a spindle which is operated by on/of knob with depresses/ releases the pin of the valve when the pressure regulator is put on of possession, the valve closes automatically and stops the flow of the valve.
3. to vi) …………………………………………….

The opposite party no. 2 submits that every customers using LPG gas have been provided information and guide lines through lpgnext.in portal built for consumers and common people for inter alia, the purpose of claiming compensation in the event of any accidental death/injury or loss of property due to manufacturing defects or defects in LPG cylinder.

The claim procedure provides:

1. in case of any accident involving consumer’s installation he/ she has to forthwith advice the supplying distributor.
2. Whenever an accident is reported the concerned area of it investigates the cause of accident and if the accident is LPG accident, the local office of the insurance company is notified by the concerned distributor/ area office and subsequently lodges claim with the concerned insurance company.
3. Customers are not required to apply the insurance company or to contact them directly.
4. Customers are required to submit to the oil company the originals of death certificate and post mortem reports/ coronas report/ inquest report as applicable in case of death and original medical bills, doctor’s prescription, in original supporting the purchase of the medicines, discharge card in original and any other documents related to the hospitalization in case of injuries.
5. In case of property damage at customer’s registered premises the insurance company appoints their surveyor to assess the loss.
6. Claims are settled best upon the merit of each case. The concerned insurance company takes decision regarding the settlement of the claim as per the provisions of the insurance policies. So, the opposite party no. 2 cannot be made liable for not providing good service nor is guilty of unfair trade practice and the complaint petition is liable to be rejected.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.

            Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainant in her argument states that she has taken a LPG connection from the opposite party no. 1 for domestic purpose being consumer no. 89731654 and the said connection is BPL connection. It is pertinent to mention that the elder son of the complainant has been residing with his family member at the same house but in a separate mess and he has been enjoying gas connection of the opposite party company at the registered place at her kitchen and both the kitchen  situates at the adjacent rooms. That on 15.2.2018 in the morning the complainant along with her husband went to the market and the wife of the elder son of the complainant was busy with her household works including cooking at her separate kitchen. Certainly at about 10 a.m. the daughter in law of the complainant smelt some pungent smell of gas leakage and before she could identify the cause of such smell within a few seconds the LPG cylinder of her kitchen caught fire and turn to blast and immediately the fire spread to the other rooms and to the kitchen of the complainant and the cylinder of the kitchen of the complainant also exploded and due to such massive blast of two cylinders the ceiling of the house of the complainant fall down and the entire house gutted by fire and the entire house hold articles, important documents, TV, refrigerator, and one bike were also ruined by fire. Thereafter the complainant and her husband rushed to their house and the local people also assembled before the house of the complainant for rescue and after a few hours two engines of fire brigade ultimately controlled the fire. After the incident the complainant and her family members contacted the opposite party no.1,company and requested them to take necessary steps so that the complainant could be compensated but opposite party no. 1 did not pay any heed to the same rather asked the complainant for bringing the damaged cylinder to them and assured the complainant for providing a new cylinder and regulator free of cost and also advised the complainant to renovate her house at her own cost and also disclosed that there is no provision of getting any compensation from the oil company and also explained the fact of leakage of cylinder as a common technical defects of gas cylinders. Soon after the incident husband of the complainant made a written complaint to the local Dhaniakhali P.S. being GDE no. 728 of 2018 dt. 15.2.2018 but till date no enquiry has been made by the concerned authority. Since then the complainant compelled to take shelter at the nearby club room at the mercy of the local villagers. The accident caused due to leakage of gas cylinder and leakage was caused due to defect in the cylinder supplied by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 but inspite of knowing such incident the opposite party no. 1 who is the dealer of the opposite party no. 2 did not take any initiative to compensate the complainant which tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and for which the complainant has suffered huge monetary loss along with mental agony, anxiety and harassment.

The opposite party No.1 in his argument stated that complainant informed the Dhanikhali P.S. regarding the incident but curious enough no copy of G.D. or report of police Enquiry has been filed before the Forum. And also states that according tosection 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act the presumption of fact of incident will go against the complainant. It is also stated that immediately after the accident two engines of fire brigade came and controlled the fire but no report of the fire brigade has been filed.The complainant has alleged that all household article, important document, T.V. Refrigerator. Motor Cycle were gutted by fire, but no such article has been seized by the police in support of the case. The complainant did not follow up the instruction of the opposite party no.2 gas company inspite of specific direction by the opposite party no.1. The complainant was dealing with the gas negligently and she has deficiency in service also. Had the complainant been properly cautious the accident would not happened. If there is any leakage in the gas cylinder of LPG the Complainant should have detected earlier, but he did not complete her duty and informed the competent authority in due time. The above act of the complainant also shows that she has negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant has not prayed for any local inspection commission in this matter. The conduct of the complainant create doubt about the destruction properties by fire and taking shelter of the members of the family in the club room. The complainant did not produce any registered expert report to substantiate her claim nor did she inform the gas authority or its dealer about the accident on 15.02.2015. They do not find any reason that prevented the complainant to inform the dealer about the incident on that date. No registered expert report has been filed by the complainant in the matter of blasting of gas cylinders. The complainant did not make any checking of gas cylinder by authorized mechanic as per Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India.

This opposite party no.2 in his argument states that no information was provided as to the alleged incident to the opposite party no. 2 and the alleged incident came to the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 after receipt of notice of this case and thus the probable incident, even if it had occurred, reasons cannot be ascertained after lapse of such a long period of time and on receipt of the notice the opposite party no. 2 immediately sent the concerned officer to visit the house of the complainant where the alleged incident took place and it was found that the complainant received a cylinder on 7.2.2018 being delivered by the delivery man of the distributorship and on 6.2.2019 the cylinder was received and the opposite party no. 2 has availed cover of insurance relating to the insurance of third party risk from the insurance company ICICI Lombard General Insurance being policy no. 4008/130680523/00/000 for the period 2.5.2017 to 1.5.2018 and the insurance company has been notified about the alleged incident on 16.5.2019 and the insurance company was requested to sent a surveyor and initiate process as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and opposite party no. 2 on 1.6.2004 entered into an agreement i.e. Bharat Gas (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) distributorship (domestic and commercial)agreement with the opposite party no.1 herein and engaged her as a distributor for sale of corporations liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in cylinders only for household consumers and commercial consumers.

The relationship between the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 1 is on principal to principal basis and that the opposite party no. 1 does not act as an agent of the opposite party no. 2 or on account of the opposite party no.2. Clause 17 of the Distributorship agreement dt. 1.6.2004 inter alia, states that in all contracts or engagement into by the distributor with the customers for sale of LPG and/ or the sale and/ or installation and/ or repairs of appliances and/ or connections thereof with LPG cylinder and/ or refills and/ or pressure regulators and/ or attached equipment the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent or on account of the corporation and the corporation shall not in any way be liable in any manner in respect of such contracts and/ or engagements and/ or in respect of any act or omission on the part of the distributor, his servants, agents and workmen in regard to such installation, sale distribution, connections, repairs or otherwise. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 cannot be responsible for alleged incident. The responsibility of the opposite party no. 2 comes to an end as soon as the cylinders are delivered at the premises of distributors i.e. the opposite party no. 1 and from then onwards distributor is liable and has to take all the care and caution. There is no direct relationship between the complainant and the opposite party no. 2 as consumer and provider of service as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In the subscription voucher it is stated that the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the distributor alone is responsible, if any for any claim arising there from and the opposite party no. 2 i.e. BPCL cannot be made liable for the same. Clause 11 of the subscription voucher clearly stated that company shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to any person or property as a result of the installation and/ or use of the gas by the consumer. In the event of any accident involving the consumer’s installation he shall forthwith inform the distributor.

 It appears from the G.D.E dated 15.2.2018 that one Mantu Mazumdar of Bhanderhati, Hooghly lodged a complaint before the Officer in charge Dhaniakhali alleging that fire caught in the Kitchen during period of cooking due to leakage of LPG cylinder which has been registered as GDE no.728 of 2018 dated 15.2.2018. As a result everything including papers lost and the said fire came under control with the intervention of Tarakeswar Fire Brigade.

  The letter dated 16.02.2018 also speaks that said Mantu Mazumdar lodged a complaint before Block Development Officer, Dhaniakhali Block alleging that about 10.40 a.m. on 15.02.2018 during the period of cooking fire caught in the kitchen due to leakage of gas and another cylinder busted as a result fire spread out in the house and the said Fire came under control after two Engines of Fire Brigade of Tarakeswar came immediately.  Due to fire erupted from gas leakage he lost one Motor Cycle, Two By cycles, LPG Cylinders, one Showcase, Two Steel Almirah, one Refrigerator, three TV sets, Two Agri Pumps, some cash money, ornaments and other papers like ration card, pan card, AAdhar card, Bank Pass book & others so he prayed to take necessary action considering his situation. The officer-in-charge of Tarakeswar Fire Station, W.B., Fire & Emergency Services forwarded the said petition to the BDO, Dhaniakhali Block with a remark that the Applicants Appeal may kindly be considered as the above fact is totally true. The complainant also filed the photocopy of burnt Aadhar card and other documents & photographs regarding effect of bursting. 

Complainant also files a few documents from paper publication and others from which the LPG insurance policy speaks that Indians who take up LPG cylinders from any of the authorized dealers are automatically enrolled in an insurance policy that provides upto Rs. 40 lakh coverage under various headings.

India is highly over populated country and providing LPG cylinders to every household is a gargantuan task- and something are bound to be overlooked in the entire process that gets an empty cylinder filled inspected, assigned, transported and installed. When dealing with tens of millions of cylinders the margins of error increases, and when dealing with something as volatile as LPG, a small oversight would have disastrous results. Every licensed LPG distributor in the country and their customers are covered under this policy which guaranteed benefit pay out of Rs.40 lakhs depending on the damage and result of the investigation. OMCs that operate as PSUs are required to take an insurance policies including third party insurance covered for persons and property. This policy is called the public liability policy for oil industries. The policy is so demanding that the distributor itself must assist the aggrieved customer in the due process of filing out paper work, etc that’s required for making an insurance claim. The LPG Company that provides the cylinders is bound by law to honour all such claims and requests. It is also their obligation to inform all their customers that they do in fact fall under the umbrella of insurance coverage in case any damages are sustained because of a faulty cylinder. It has been widely noted that LPG companies and distributors are not informing their customers about this and are instead trying to play it off saying that the customer did not make a claim, when in fact the customer has no idea that he/ she is under any kind of instances cover while this may be alright for urban customers who can either figured it out eventually by reading online or may not even need the insurance cover because their private wealth can sort out any damages, it’s the ruler population that suffers. LPG companies do not inform them of any insurance cover and if any accident does happen, the rural poor in India are left to fend for themselves, when in fact they could have received lakhs of rupees that they so desperately need. The complainant also files a newspaper cutting under the heading every LPG customer has Rs. 40 lakh insurance, claims are filed rarely due to lack of awareness, oil companies, Govt. avoid educating people.

According to this complainant the leakage which resulted to fire and lastly burst was due to the defect in the valve of the cylinder. The opposite party no. 1, however, out of his own way without making any spot verification and not even verifying the defective cylinders very perplexingly held that the cylinder was having no defect since no leakage of gas was detected or reported during the custody of the allegedly defective cylinder for a period of 7 days with the opposite party since the date of delivery of the same.

After perusing the documents and hearing the argument we are in the opinion that the duties and responsibilities on the part of the distributors had been clearly delineated and submitted that the dealer should act and should always be deemed to have acted as a principal not as an agent and the corporation would not be liable in any of the activities scheduled in the paras to be done by the dealer/ distributor itself. In the instant case the opposite party no. 2 being the agency had already entered into an agreement with the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company on payment of a good amount of annual premium for compensating the victim in similar circumstances and per procedure laid down in the said agreement. On the instant occasion said insurance company was not made a party. From that perspective also the merit of the case was adversely affected due to non joinder of necessary party. According to the opposite party that rights from the bottling plant the cylinder for delivery are tested at different phases. There is, therefore, a zero possibility of existence of any defect in the delivered cylinders that most unlikely that there should be any manufacturing in the cylinders in the given circumstances. The opposite party also argued that the complainant had not followed the basic guide lines ensuring safety while connecting cylinders with the burner. The case record appeared to be devoid of any report from the police. There was no report from an investigating agency other than the fire services.

After perusing the case record, it appears that we have no record corroborating the fact that the insurance company is ever informed about the incident by the opposite party no. 1 nor do we have any corroborating papers supporting insurance companies taking appropriate action towards enquiring into the subject incident. In fact the record appeared to be silent about any kind of initiating taken by the insurance company which raises doubt about the complainant’s claim about informing the insurance company regarding the incident. We found at the same time reasons to believe that there is almost no chance for the accidental fire to be broken out unless there is leakage of LPG from the cylinder irrespective of the fact that there was burst of other cylinder in the adjoint kitchen. Such leakage of gas appeared, prima facie to have been taken place at the time of fitting the cylinder with the gas burner. Sudden jump of regulator from the cylinder valve may cause leakage of gas in the defense situation. The complainant made a further mistake by not impleading the insurance company doing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of insurance agreement between them. So, from the above discussion the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 however cannot escape from the charge of not extending to the complainant the due insurance coverage through the insurance company with which they were having the agreement. They claimed to have communicated to the insurance company about the insurance. The case record however was devoid of any document of such communication. It is also not clear whether the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 at all made any communication or persuasion for engagement of surveyor to ascertain the veracity of the incident and to assess as well the lost sustained by the complainant which is anything but an action securing the consumer’s interest.

   The claim procedure of opposite party Insurance Company  provides,  whenever an accident is reported the concerned area of it investigates the cause of accident and if the accident is LPG accident, the local office of the insurance company is notified by the concerned distributor/ area office and subsequently lodges claim with the concerned insurance company. And in case of property damage at customer’s registered premises the insurance company appoints their surveyor to assess the loss. But the opposite party no.1&2 after receiving the information of accident of cylinder burst never cared to send the surveyor or loss assessor and to pursue the matter before the Insurance Company so that the complainant may be compensated for loss in accordance with the provisions of claim procedure.

            Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have not brought on record any evidence that the accident took place due to mishandling or some negligence on the part of the complainant. There was no violation of Section 3 (2) of the LPG Control Order as the same cylinder was supplied by the distributor i.e. opposite party no. 1 and authorized by opposite party no. 2 to supply the gas cylinders to the consumers.

            Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal in Indian Oil Corporation vs. Shib Shankar, I (2005) CPJ 104, observed that it was not for the complainant to lead expert evidence, but it was for the respondent to lead expert evidence. We have relied the judgement, Azad Gas Services vs. Peter Masih and others I (2022) CPJ 270 (NC) in which Hon’ble National Commission directed the opposite party no. 2 Indian Oil Corporation and opposite party no. 4 M/s New India Assurance Company from which it had obtained public liability policy to pay jointly or severally the lump sum compensation.

            From the above observation this Commission is in the opinion that the opposite party no. 2 is responsible for nor settling the claim of compensation through his insurance policy as a result the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite party no. 2. As such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation as ascertained by this Commission.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 185 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party no. 2 with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The opposite party No.1 is directed to restore the gas supply in the name of this complainant in accordance with the booking.   

The opposite party no. 2 is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the accident till realization within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.