Haryana

Karnal

CC/354/2021

Kamlesh Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wahe Guru Indane Gas Gramin Vitrak - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Chauhan

25 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 354 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.26.07.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:25.07.2024

 

Kamlesh Devi aged about 45 years wife of Shri Rishipal, resident of near Animal Hospital, Village Guniana, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Aadhar no.2268 4186 8154.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. Wahe Guru Indane Gas Gramin Vitrak# Dachar Road, Ranjit Nagar, Nissing, District Karnal, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Indane Gas, registered office at Indane oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.) Indane Area office, Delhi 2^nd floor, World Trade Centre Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001.
3. Indane Gas, Corporate office at 3079/3, JB Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Anuj Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Simranjeet Singh, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3.

               

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is maintaining a Gas Agency under the name and style Wahe Guru Indane Gas Gramin Vitrak, # Dachar Road, Ranjit Nagar, Nissing, District Karnal under the supervision and guidelines of OPs no.2 and 3 and is dealing in supply of domestic and commercial Gas Cylinders to the inhabitants of the area. Complainant is consumer of OPs and OP no.1 issued a Gas Connection, vide consumer no.565662870 dated 09.12.2016 in favour of the complainant. On the basis of said Gas Connection the complainant is booking and receiving the gas Cylinders from the OP no.1 for using in his house for domestic purpose. The complainant belongs to a poor family as the husband of the complainant is running a Tea Stall in a Khokha at Nissing. On 07.11.2019, complainant had taken a fill up Gas cylinder from the OP no.1 and on 08.11.2019 in the morning time, complainant had installed the aforesaid cylinder in her house and complainant started using the same. During using said gas cylinder, the regulator of aforesaid Gas Cylinder started burning with fire, in which the house of the complainant caught fire and complainant with the help of neighbours had got hold fire. Thereafter, complainant immediately approached to the office of OP no.1 and narrated the entire incident to the OP no.1 and saying that due to negligence on the part of the OP no.1, the house of the complainant had burnt and all the goods, which were laying in the house of the complainant were burnt and due to fire the complainant had suffered loss approximately of Rs.5-6 lakhs. At that time, OP no.1 had admitted his guilt and OP no.1 also given an assurance to complainant that OP no.1 will convince the OPs no.2 and 3 in this regard and would compensate the complainant as early as possible. The matter was also got registered in police Station Nissing Karnal, vide DDR no.027 dated 08.11.2019 and the event of burning house was also got published in newspaper Karnal Kesri edition dated 09.11.2019. But despite of repeated visits and requests, OPs did not pay any compensation to the complainant, rather every times OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 08.12.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the unauthorized pressure regulator was not fitted properly by the complainant and due to that reason leakage of LPG caught fire from the matchstick and subsequently engulfed the cylinder. The cylinder was checked for PDC before delivery and the O-ring was found intact after the accident. There are burns mark on cylinder body and PR is completely burnt from lower side. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per investigation report the cylinder was delivered on 07.11.2019 after PDC by the distributor. The customer installed the cylinder in the morning of 08.11.2019. The gas stove was placed at ground. The moment matchstick was ignited, PR caught fire. Customer tried to pull cylinder out of room and in this process cylinder fell on ground and came to horizontal position. The fire might have been started due to incorrect fitment of non-standard Pressure Regulator (PR)/ malfunctioning of PR which was not of Indane. The LPG leaking from PR settled down in the room which, on application of flame from matchstick to hotplate placed at ground level, caught fire and subsequently engulfed the cylinder. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation of alleged accident, concerned team visited the premises and prepared the Accident Investigation Report. Accident was got registered with ICICI Lombard vide mail dated 17.01.2020 and the insurance company confirmed the registration of claim vide reference no.LIA010903990 dated 21.01.2020. Insurance company vide mail dated 27.05.2021 has intimated that the subject claim has been repudiated as no claim due to connection of unauthorized PR with domestic cylinder. It is further pleaded that there is no evidence or any report that has been filed alongwith the complaint having been issued by any competent investigative authority like Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, to show or identify the exact nature and/or cause of the alleged unfortunate incident. There is no expert’s report annexed with the complaint, no forensic examination report about the alleged unfortunate incident for pointing out probable cause of the unfortunate incident whereabouts, identification, specification of the cylinder in question is entirely missing in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, electricity bill Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card Ex.C4, connection copy Ex.C5, copy of C.M. Window complaint Ex.C6, copy of Fire Attendance Certificate Ex.C7, copy of DDR Ex.C8, newspaper cutting Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 16.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh proprietor Ex.R1/A, copy of accident investigation report Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 04.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raghavendra Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of agreement Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 02.11.2016 Ex.OP2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP3, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 issued a Gas Connection to the complainant. On 08.11.2019, complainant had installed the cylinder. During using said gas cylinder, the regulator of aforesaid Gas Cylinder started burning with fire, due to that the house of the complainant caught fire.  Complainant immediately approached to the office of OP no.1 and narrated the entire incident. The house of the complainant and all the goods were laying in the house had burnt, and she had suffered huge financial loss. The matter was also got informed in the concerned Police Station and the event of burning house was also got published in newspaper on 09.11.2019. But despite of repeated visits and requests, OPs did not pay any compensation to the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the unauthorized pressure regulator was not fitted properly and due to that reason leakage of LPG caught fire from the matchstick and subsequently engulfed the cylinder. The cylinder was checked for PDC before delivery and the O-ring was found intact after the accident. There are burns marks on cylinder body and PR is completely burnt from lower side. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 argued that as per investigation report the cylinder was delivered after PDC by the distributor. The complainant installed the cylinder. The gas stove was placed on ground. The moment matchstick was ignited, PR caught fire. The fire might have been started due to incorrect fitment of non-standard Pressure Regulator (PR)/ malfunctioning of PR which was not of Indane. On receipt of intimation of alleged accident, concerned team visited the premises and prepared the Accident Investigation Report. There is no evidence or any report that has been filed alongwith the complaint having been issued by any competent investigative authority like Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, to show or identify the exact nature and/or cause of the alleged unfortunate incident. There is no expert’s report, no forensic examination report about the alleged unfortunate incident for pointing out probable cause of the unfortunate incident whereabouts, identification, specification of the cylinder in question is entirely missing and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           The complainant has alleged that fire took place due to sole negligence on the part of the OPs because OPs have supplied the inferior quality cylinder. The onus to prove her version was relied upon the complainant but she has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

14.           On the other hand, OPs have alleged that the unauthorized pressure regulator was not fitted properly by the complainant and due to that reason leakage of LPG caught fire from the matchstick. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the OPs. To prove their version, OPs have placed on record accident investigation report Ex.R1/OP3 dated 03.12.2019. The Analysis para of the said report is reproduced as under:-

“During change of cylinder, the unauthorized pressure regulator was not fitted properly by the customer, became the source of leakage of LPG which caught fire from the matchstick and subsequently engulfed the cylinder. The cylinder was checked for PDC before delivery and the O-ring was found intact after the accident. There are burns marks on cylinder body and PR is completely burnt from lower side.”

 

14.           To rebut the said report produced by the OPs, complainant has not produced any documentary evidence or report to ascertain the exact cause of the alleged incident. There is no expert’s report or forensic examination report about the alleged unfortunate incident for pointing out probable cause of the incident whereabouts, identification, and specification of the cylinder in question. Hence, it has been proved on the file that complainant had not fitted the regulator properly and due to that alleged incident had taken place. Thus, there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:25.07.2024                                                                     

                                                             President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                          Member