Hindustan Petroleum

**admin** · 09-07-2009, 10:55 PM

Shri P. Benjamin Walter,
Flat No. 8,
Kunkolienkar Bldg.,
Cariamoddi,
Curchorem Goa ….. Complainant

V/s.

1.The Chairman,
East Quepem Consumer Co-op. Society Ltd.,
H.P. Gas Dealer,
Curchorem Goa.

2.East Quepem Consumer Co-op. Society Ltd.,
H.P. Gas Dealer,
Curchorem Goa.

3.The Director,
Hindustan Petroleum Co-op. Ltd.,
Regd. Off: at 27, Jamens Ja Road,
Mumbai 400 020.

4.Hindustan Petroleum Co-op. Ltd.,
Govt. of India Enterprises,
Regd.Off: 17, Jamens Ja Road,
Mumbai 400 020.

5.New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Jaganat Building,
2nd fLoor, Jose Inacio de Loyola Road,
Margao Goa. ….. Opposite Parties

Advocate Shri Sudin Naik for the Complainant
Advocate Shri B.D. Nazareth for O.P. Nos. 3 & 4
Advocate Shri P.N. Kamat for O.P. No.5

…2/-

Dated: 30/04/2009

O R D E R

(Per Shri Jagdish Prabhudesai,President)

By this Order we shall dispose off the Complaint dated 29.11.2005 filed by the Complainant herein against the Opposite Parties(O.Ps.) herein under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

I.The case of the Complainant is that he is a Consumer of O.P. No.4 and that the membership was routed through O.P. 1 and 2, the dealer of O.P. No.4. It is further alleged in the complaint that O.P. No.2 has accepted the Complainant as its consumer and has allotted No. 623400 and that the Complainant through its subscription dated 02.11.2000 booked a LPG connection for the purpose of domestic use. It was understood that the gas cylinders were regularly supplied to the Complainant but it was noted that from the time of installation there was no untoward incident till 04.04.2004. The O.P. No.2 has delivered the gas on 22.03.2004 to the Complainant.

II.On 05.04.2004 the Complainant replaced the existing empty gas cylinder with the filled cylinder. After fixation of the cylinder the Complainant lighted the gas stove. Immediately thereafter fire transferred to the filled cylinder regulator bottom. The Complainant tried to stop the fire, which was fast spreading in the entire kitchen. However, the same could not be controlled.

III.It is further alleged that the Complainant alongwith his wife and five year old son came out of the flat and immediately rushed to his neighbour’s house and from there the Complainant contacted the Fire Brigade Department.
…3/-

IV.It is further alleged that the Fire Personnel came to the site and managed to extinguish the fire and their timely intervention prevented further damage and loss to the property and human life.

V.The case of the Complainant is that the after inspecting the site and the concerned cylinder the Fire Department prepared its Fire/Incident Report and that on 06.04.2004 the Complainant informed the O.P.no.2 about the fire incident. Alongwith the written complaint the Complainant also submitted the estimate of the loss caused to him due to the incident. The O.P. No.2 thereafter directed the Complainant to hand over the possession of the defective gas cylinder to them and assured the Complainant that his claim for damages would be taken up on priority basis and accordingly the defective gas cylinder was handed over to the O.P.no.2 on 06.04.2004.

VI.The O.P. No.2 informed the Complainant that his claim was referred to the New India Assurance Company, Margao and directed the Complainant to sign on the claim form. Subsequent to the filing of the claim, the O.P. No.2 informed the Complainant that the O.P. No.5 had rejected the Complainant’s claim.

VII.It is also alleged in the complaint that Advocate Sudhir Naik addressed legal notice on 19.08.2005 to the O.Ps herein and required them to comply with the said notice.

VIII.The O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 received the said notice, but only O.P.2 and 4 replied the same vide their reply dated 15.09.2005 and 05.10.2005 respectively inter-alia denying their respective liabilities towards the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that there is a washer fitted at the mouth of the gas cylinder and that if the said washer is loose, then the same results in gas leakage at the time of installation.

…4/-

IX.Based on the said cause of action the Complainant filed the present complaint with the following reliefs:

a)The O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 be jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony.
b)Cost of the complaint be provided for.
c)Such other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

On receiving the notices from this Forum O.P. no.1 and 2 filed their Reply dated 30.01.2006 inter-alia opposing the case of the Complainant on the following amongst other grounds:

1.That the present complaint is totally mis-conceived, bad-in-law, false, frivolous and that it is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, and that the same is not maintainable.

2.The said O.P. Nos 1 and 2 alleged that as per the complaint the Complainant alleged that the fire broke out due to loosening of the washer fitted at the mouth of the gas cylinder which resulted in gas leakage is false. According to the O.P. nos. 1and 2 the washer was intact and not loose as alleged but due to the leakage of worn out hosepipe the fire broke out and the same was burn and was not at all seen on the site.

3.The said O.Ps also offered parawise version in their defence.

4.The contents of para nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 are self explanatory. The said O.Ps also denied that the Complainant informed the O.P.no.2 about the fire incident on 06.04.2004. The said O.Ps informed that the above incident on 05.04.2004. The said O.Ps also denied that

…5/-

they assured the Complainant that his claim for damages would be taken up on priority basis. The said O.Ps therefore prayed that the complaint being false and mischievous ought to be dismissed with costs.

O.P. No.5 also has filed their written version dated 15.02.2006 and opposed the case of the Complainant on the following amongst other grounds:

1)The O.P.no.5 alleged that they have been unnecessarily dragged into the case when there is no privity between the Complainant and this O.P. and that on the ground of mis-joinder of the necessary parties alone, the complaint deserves to be dismissed against the said O.P.

2)The said O.P. alleged that they had not provided any service to the Complainant and therefore the case should be dismissed against the said O.P.

3)The said O.P. no.5 also offered parawise comments on merits. They admitted that the Fire Brigade personnel appeared at the scene and extinguished the fire as it is revealed from the Police record. The said O.P. also alleged that the Complainant has suppressed the real cause for the fire and has concocted a story in an attempt to claim compensation for the loss/damage caused, on false and malafide grounds and that there was no defect in the washer or in the gas cylinder at all and both were intact after the incident of fire and further that there was no leakage of gas through the washer or the cylinder.

4)The said O.P.no. 5 also denied that the Complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000/- and the said O.P. further denied that the Complainant has suffered any mental agony.

…6/-

5) The case of the O.P. no.5 is that they are not even remotely connected with the alleged cause of action and therefore the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as against O.P. no.5 for want of any cause of action , with costs.

The Complainant filed his Affidavit-in-evidence dated 12.07.2007 inter-alia confirming his stand in the complaint. Mrs. Mary Madhuri, wife of the Complainant also filed supportive Affidavit-in-evidence dated 31.08.2007. The Regional Manager of O.P. No.4, Mr. M.B. Ingole has filed his Affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the said O.P. adopting his case in their respective written version. Mrs. Neera Saxena, Sr. Divisional Manager of O.P. NO.5 field her Affidavit-in-evidence dated 03.03.2008.
We have heard the respective arguments advanced by all the parties hereto. We have gone through the documents, pleadings and the respective Affidavits-in-evidence and now we proceed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and record our findings in respect of the issues arising out of the cause of action in the present case as would contain hereinafter:

1.It is observed from the record that the Complainant has relied upon certain documents such as membership subscription as Exhibit ‘A’ gas receipt issued by O.P. no.2. We have gone the Fire/Incident Report dated 05.04.2004 which is Exhibit ‘C’. In the said report, the supposed cause of fire/incident is said to be “due to leakage of gas from regulator while cooking”. The said report under description of damage mentions “refrigerator, mixture, stabilizer, electrical wiring.” The damage to contents is stated to be the sum of Rs. 30,000/-.

2.We have also gone through the copy of the complaint dated 05.04.2004 filed by the Complainant as well as the legal notice dated 19.08.2005. In the said legal notice vide para 4 thereof addressed to the O.Ps, it is stated as under:
…7/-
“My client states that the fire occurred due to the leakage of the gas from the regulator. The leakage was due to washer in the cylinder mouth being loose. My client states that he has suffered a loss due to fire to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). My client states that you are liable to pay compensation to him for the loss caused to his property due to the leakage of gas cylinder. My client states that this act of yours is a clear deficiency in service on your part.”

3.On the contrary P.O. No.2 and 4 vide their letters dated 15.09.2005 and 05.10.2005 has brought to the notice of the Complainant that they had visited the consumer premises soon after the incident took place and that it was found that the hosepipe of cylinder which was left behind was completely worn out and further stated that there was no leakage either from neither cylinder nor the regulator and further reveals that due to the negligence of the customer the fire took place. In this connection we are of the opinion that the said O.Ps have failed to substantiate their aforesaid allegation. Even the source of their knowledge is not free from any reasonable doubt.

4.The Complainant has filed his Affidavit-in-evidence as well as his wife Mrs. Mary Madhuri also has filed her supportive Affidavit-in-evidence. The said two affidavits filed by the Complainant and the witness, have not been substantially contradicted by the O.Ps. Mrs. Mary Madhuri, wife of the Complainant has deposed at para 3 of her Affidavit-in-evidence that “on 05.04.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. her husband Shri Benjamin Walter replaced the existing empty gas cylinder with the filled cylinder, which has been supplied by the O.P. no.2 and that after fixing the cylinder her husband lighted the gas stove, immediately thereafter fire transferred to the filled cylinder regulator bottom.” The Complainant and the witness have given the detailed circumstances under which the fire took place and the manner in which the Complainant reacted to the whole incident.

5.In our opinion the Complainant is undoubtedly the consumer of the O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the said O.Ps are the service-providers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

….8/-
6.We have gone through the citations of the various Courts cited by both the parties. In our opinion the Complainant has succeeded in proving the allegations as against O.Ps nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. The documents on record also reveal that the Complainant has taken all necessary steps to comply with the pre-condition of the settlement of the claim.

7.We are therefore of the considered opinion that the Complainant has made out a good claim against the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

8.However, things are difficult when we come to decide the liability, if any, on the part of the O.P. No.5. We agree with the contention of the O.P. no.5 that the said O.P. did not owe any obligation to the Complainant to provide any service. We also agree with the submissions made by O.P. No.5 that there is absolutely no privity of contract between the Complainant and the said O.P. We further agree with the submission made by the O.P. No.5 that they were obviously not aware as to what transpired between other O.Ps.

9.However, we reject the arguments of all the O.Ps that the real cause of fire was due to the negligence of the Complainant and his wife. We are also inclined to agree with the O.Ps that the Complainant has suppressed any material fact.

10.In the result, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has substantiated with cogent and convincing evidence all his allegations. But, as stated earlier, the liability in the present case can be extended on to the O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 but O.P. No.5 cannot be held liable at all.

11.In the result, we hold that the aforesaid acts on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 do amount to “deficiency-in-service” and the said O.Ps accordingly are held liable to pay consolidated sum of damages to the Complainant. However, in the circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated above, this complaint has to be dismissed against O.P. No.5. ….9/-
We therefore pass the following Order:

O R D E R

It is hereby Ordered that the Complaint dated 29.11.2005 filed by the Complainant herein, hereby stands allowed only as against O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. However, this complaint is dismissed as against O.P. no.5. Accordingly the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) by way of compensation and damages towards mental agony. The said O.Ps are also further directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of costs. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the O.Ps within 30 days from the date of this Order.

**Sidhant** · 09-10-2009, 10:58 PM

1. R. Venkatesham, S/o Laxmirajyam aged 37 years

Occ: Business

2. Uppala Thopaiah S/o Viswanatham aged 50 years

Caste: Vyasya Occ: Business

3. Uppala Srilatha W/o Thopaiah aged 45 years

Occ: Household

Both R/o 2-151, Prashanthnagar,

Waddera Colony, Siddipet.

… Complainants

And

1. Sri M. Gopal Proprietor M/s Srinivas Enterprises,

HP Gas Door No. 6-46, Plot No. 1, Indiranagar, Medak Road,

Siddipet – 502103, Medak District, AP.

2. The Deputy Manager (LPG) Hindustan Petroleum Co., Ltd.,

Chandralok, Ist floor, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad.

3. The Manager (Unit Officer) The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,

2-11-90/2, Weekly Market Road, Kamareddy – 503110.

Nizamabad Dist.

4. The General Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,

New India Assurance Building 87,

M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai, PO Mumbai.

….Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 13.04.2009 in the presence of Sri. G. Hanumanth Reddy, advocate for complainants, Sri N. Sai Baba, advocate for opposite party No. 1, Sri R. Ravinder Reddy, advocate for opposite party No. 2 and Sri. P. Bal Reddy, advocate for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, upon hearing arguments on both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:

-2-

O R D E R

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an award for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants 2 and 3 with interest at 12% and costs.

The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1) Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are co-brothers and complainant No. 3 is wife of complainant No.2. They used to reside in a rented house bearing No.12-3-137/2 at Narsapur of Siddipet. Later they have shifted their residence to the newly constructed house of complainant No.1 bearing door No. 2-151which is situated in Prashathnagar Grampanchyath of Siddipet. Opposite party No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s Srinivasa Enterprises and dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited for LPG connections. Opposite party No. 2 is controlling authority of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are doing business of LPG Gas cylinders in Siddipet. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are insurance company which issued policy bearing No.6106605/46/86/22/0000019 valid from 26.09.2006 to 25.09.2007 covering the risk of opposite party No.1.

2) Opposite party No.1 has given gas connection vide consumer No. 608618 for domestic cooking. Opposite party No. 1 supplied a cylinder to the complainants on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours. When the complainants 2 and 3 are trying to fix regulator to the cylinder, the gas came out immediately from the cylinder due to which the electric bulb in the kitchen was broken and there upon the complainants caught fire. Fire service people put off the flames. Because of the accident the tiles in the kitchen are broken and all articles including electrical wiring were damaged.

3) Immediately after the accident the complainants were shifted to Siddipet hospital and from there to Gandhi hospital, where they were treated as inpatients from 31.10.2006 to 06.11.2006. Both the claimants sustained burns over 30% of their bodies, on their faces, limbs and other parts of the body, due to which they are unable to do any work even after the injuries are healed. Complainant No. 1

-3-

used to do business in paddy on commission basis and get about Rs.5,000/- per month. Complainant No. 2 is house wife who used to look after all family affairs. From the date of accident the complainants are not able to do any work. Complainant No. 1 forcibly stopped his business as his health is not co-operating as such they became dependents on others. Their children are studying intermediate second year and tenth class, as such the complainants are put to financial crisis and mental shock because of the accident.

4) The complainants incurred Rs.30,000/- when they were in the hospital. After discharge also they have been taking medicines on the advise of doctors.

5) The complainants immediately informed the accident, due to leakage of gas, to opposite party No. 1, as gas cylinder was supplied by opposite party No. 1. In turn opposite party No. 1 informed the same to opposite party No. 3 through their letter dt 18.01.2007 and requested to pay compensation, as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 issued policy covering the risk of opposite party No. 1. As opposite parties No. 1 and 2 supplied defective gas cylinder to the complainants family and as it caught fire due to leakage of gas and as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 issued policy covering the risk, all the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

6) The accident occurred on 30.10.2006 at prashanthinagar, Siddipet . The complainants are therefore seeking an award for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to complainants 2 and 3. Hence the complaint.

7) The claim is resisted by the opposite parties by filing counters.

The counter of opposite party No. 1 in brief is as follows:

The complainants failed to fix the regulator to the cylinder properly and because of their own mistake the accident took place. At the time of fixing regulator to gas cylinder they have failed to take all precautions as per the instructions of the gas company. Leaking gas cylinder was never supplied to the complainants, therefore payment of compensation to the complainants does not arise. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.

-4-

8) The counter of opposite party No. 2, in the form of affidavit, in brief is as follows:

The complainants are not consumers of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 appoints dealers for enrolling customers for supply of LPG cylinders to them, on principal to principal basis. In the present case also opposite party No. 1 was appointed as dealer of opposite party No. 2. After opposite party No. 1 was granted dealer ship it has enrolled the first complainant as its customer. The relationship between opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is governed by terms and conditions of dealership agreement signed by them and it is in between them.

The dealer is required to indemnify the corporation against any claim as per the said agreement. As the first complainant is having domestic gas connection bearing consumer No. 608618 from opposite party No. 1, there is no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No. 2, so the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No. 2 and hence it is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No. 1 has taken insurance policy covering the risk, as such complaint against opposite party No. 2 has to be dismissed. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 has no information of the accident. Had the accident was informed to opposite party No. 2, immediately the matter would have been investigated by its experts. The alleged accident and injuries are to complainants 2 and 3, therefore there is no necessity for first complainant to stop business.

Even otherwise it is denied that the complainants are unable to do any work. All these allegations are pressed into service to prepare a ground for claiming compensation. It is denied that the complainants incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and that they are continuing medicines. It is false to alleged in para 6 of the complaint that opposite party No. 2 supplied a defective cylinder. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. As already stated above the complainants are not consumers of opposite party No. 2 and there is no privity of contract between them. Hence the complainants are not entitled to any amount from opposite party No. 2 . The complaint may therefore be dismissed.

9). The counter of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in brief is as follows:

-5-

It is not admitted that complainant No. 1 is consumer of gas connection and that he is a resident in the house number given in the complainant. Actually complainant No. 1 is residing in Vemulawada. The complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are in no way concerned with the gas connection of first complainant or its use. Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are not related to complainant No. 1.

Cylinder was filling with care and caution at the filling plant with the entire process of technical staff and in built checks, counter checks and cross checks regarding quality, quantity and safety. Hence the question of leakage of gas from the cylinder does not arise. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the installation of gas cylinder must be by the authorized agent, but in the instant case the complainants Nos. 2 and 3 themselves have installed the regulator to the cylinder and due to their fault only the accident occurred. There is no coverage for the benefits to the customers. In any case opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants as the complainants themselves are at fault and as the incident took place at their instance. The claim of Rs.5,00,000/- compensation is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and out of all proportions. The complainants are not entitled to any amount. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.

10) Evidence affidavit of second complainant is filed to prove the contents of the complaint, on behalf of other complainants also. Opposite parties have not filed any affidavits to prove the contents of their respective counters. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Ex. B1 is marked on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and B2 is marked on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are filed. On behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2 no written arguments are filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.

11) The point for consideration is whether the complainants 3 and 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as claimed in the complaint?

-6-

Point:

12) It is the case of the complainants that all of them reside under one roof in the house of the 1st complainant bearing door No.2-151 and gas connection No. 608618 was given by opposite party No. 1 for domestic purpose and on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours gas cylinder was supplied to them by opposite party No. 1 and when complainants 2 and 3 were trying to fix regulator to the cylinder at about 7:00 A.M., because of leakage of gas from the cylinder, the cylinder was burst as the gas caught fire and both of them sustained burn injuries 30% over their bodies and all the articles in the kitchen are damaged and they have taken treatment as in patients in Gandhi hospital from 31.10.2006 to 06.11.2007, for a period of one week and during the said period they have spent about Rs.30,000/- and even after discharge, they have been taking medicines on the advise of doctors; therefore they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against all the opposite parties.

13) None of the documents marked on behalf of the complainants as exhibits, convincingly prove their place of residence. Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of mediators report of scene of offence, conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Siddipet, I town police station.

It does not contain the crime number in which the panchayath was held during the course of investigation. It does not even contain General Diary entry number, if crime is not registered by the time of conducting of panchanama. According to the complainants No. 2 and 3, the incident took place on 30.10.2006 at about 7:00 A.M. Exs. A4 and A6 show that the date of incident is 31.10.06 at 4:30 P.M. It is not known which version is correct. The panchanama covered by Ex. A1 is on 07.03.2007 at 4:00 P.M. i.e. more than four months one week after the alleged incident. On a reading of Ex. A1 it is understood that the incident occurred at the house of complainant No. 2 bearing house No. 2-151. The name of the first complainant is not seen any where in Ex. A1. He is not even a witness for the alleged panchanama.

14) Ex. A2 bears Xerox copies of two certificates, one issued by Panchayat Secretary of Pprashathnagar Gram Pachayat and the other by Fire Office, Siddipet. The certificate of Panchayat secretary is dt 03.02.2007 i.e. more than three months after the alleged incident. The said certificate does not contain the date of incident at all. This certificate shows that the residence of second complainant is in house No.

-7-

2-151 but the certificate does not show that the said house belongs to the first complainant.

15) The other certificate in Ex. A2 by the fire office is dt.14.12.2006 i.e. about more than one and half month after the alleged incident, also shows that the house bearing No. 2-151 is that of the second complainant. Even the news paper information covered by Ex. A5 does not show that the house in which the incident alleged to have taken place belongs to the first complainant.

16) No where in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of the second complainant, it is stated in whose name the gas connection was given. According to the opposite parties the gas connection was in the name of complainant No. 1 and infact he does not reside along with the complainants 2 and 3. It is stated by opposite party No. 3 and 4 that the first complainant resides in Vemulawada in Karimnagar District.

The complainants have not produced the gas connection card at least to prove that the gas cylinder which was alleged to have been leaking at the time of fixing the regulator, was supplied by opposite party No. 1 for complainant No. 1. There is no proof that the cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 was for consumer No. 608618 of complainant No. 1 and it was operated by complainant Nos. 2 and 3 and it was burst.

There is also no proof that when the gas was booked and when it was supplied. The averments in para 3 of the complaint that opposite party No. 1 supplied gas cylinder on 30.10.2006 in the morning hours (time of accident is at about 7:00 A.M. on 30.10.2006) cannot be believed to be correct,because by that time normally the office of opposite party No. 1 will not be opened. On a reading of the complaint as a whole, the complainants intended to say that the accident was on 30.10.2006 at about 7:00 A.M. and the cylinder was supplied earlier there to. Exs.A4&A6, which are case record books of complainants 2&3 maintained by Gandhi hospital doctor for admission, discharge and treatment given to them, show that the incident ie. fire accident took place on 31-10-2006 at 7-07AM.

17) Even the evidence affidavit of 1st complainant is not filed to prove the contents in the complaint that he has been residing along with complainant Nos. 2 and 3 in his house and the accident occurred at the time of fixing regulator to the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 for his gas connection. Except finding

-8-

signature, purported to be of the first complainant, in the complaint there is no other material before this forum to show that first complainant has at least knowledge of filing this complaint. The first complainant has not participated in the enquiry of this case, nor turned up to the forum at any time, even though the matter has been pending since more than one year.

18). As the gas connection does not stand in the name of either complainant No. 2 or complainant No. 3, as there is no satisfactory proof to show that they were residing with complainant No. 1 in his house and used the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 1 to the connection of complainant No. 1 and as the complainant No. 1 has not given any evidence affidavit before this forum in support of any of the averments in the complaint, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3, in whose favour award is sought, for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, cannot to be said to be consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such there is no consumer dispute before this forum in this complaint and hence the relief sought for in the complaint cannot be granted.
If the contentions of the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are true and correct regarding the incident, their remedy is elsewhere but not in this forum, as they are not consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The point is answered against the complainants.

**Sidhant** · 09-19-2009, 11:58 AM

Nabin Kishor Patra 65 (sixty five) years, S/o. Achutananda Patra, At. Padhanpali Road, Bargarh, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.

... ... ... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

1) M/s. Priya Gas Sales and Service, Shop No.1, Bijaya Complex, N.H.6, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

2) Area Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar, Filling Plant, Jatni, Dist. Khurdha.

... ... ... Opposite Parties.

Dt.27/07/2009.

The Case is posted to-day for hearing on the case. The Advocate for the Opposite Parties is present. The Complainant has failed to appear before the Forum or has taken any steps. The Complainant is absent and has failed to take any steps since Dt. 07/05/2009 till this date.

Hence, it presumes that the Complainant has no interest to proceed with the case.

In this circumstances, it is satisfy to dismiss the complaint.

The case is dismissed for default.

**adv.sumit** · 09-30-2009, 11:10 AM

Ram Pal s/o Sh. Mukand Lal aged about 54 years r/o Village Sehrak, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Complainant

versus

1. Dasuya Gas Service, Gurunanak Nagar, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

2. Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Gas Limited, through Dasuya Gas Service, Guru Nanak Nagar, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Opposite Parties

1. The complainant namely Ram Pal has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is having domestic cooking gas connection of HP bearing consume No. 511529.

2. It is the case of the complainant that upto 25.8.2008, the gas was being supplied at the house of the complainant by OP No. 1, but suddenly in the month of September, 2008, the OP No. 1- Dasuya Gas Service stopped the home delivery of the gas to the complainant. The complainant contacted the officials of OP No. 2 on toll free No.18002333777, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. It is further the case of the complainant that he again contacted the sale officer of the opposite party on Phone No. 98155-36105 on 3.11.2008 for home delivery of the gas, but the official of the opposite party No. 2 also failed to give any satisfactory reply to the queries raised by the complainant regarding home delivery of the gas.

3. It is the grouse of the complainant that he was forced to lift the gas from the go-down of OP No. 1. That the non-supply of cooking gas at the premises of the complainant is illegal. The opposite parties were requested to supply the cooking gas at the premises of the complainant, but of no consequence, hence this complaint.

4. The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The preliminary objection with regard to concealment of material fact was raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the village of the complainant does not fall within delivery zone of opposite party. The delivery zone of the opposite party is within the MC limit, whereas the village of the complainant is more than 10 kms from the delivery zone. However, in order to facilitate the customer, when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then supply is used to be given to customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs. 8/-, per rules of the Company and Clause 7 of agreement between the parties. It is further replied that home delivery of gas was only given to the complainant on 1.12.2008, 12.1.2009 and 6.4.2009.

5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, gas connection pass-book – Mark C-2 (13 pages) and closed the evidence.

6. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh – Ex. RW1/A, agreements – Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.

7. The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.

8. The grouse of the complainant is that the OP No. 1 – Dasuya Gas Service suddenly in the month of September, 2008, stopped the home delivery of the gas to the complainant, as such he was forced to lift the gas from the godown. The opposite parties have raised the plea that the village of the complainant does not fall within the delivery zone of the opposite parties, as the delivery zone of the opposite parties is within the MC limit, whereas the village of the complainant is more than 10 kms from the delivery zone. The opposite parties have also raised the plea that in order to facilitate the customer, when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then the supply is used to be given to the customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs. 8/-, per rules of the Company and Clause 7 of agreement between the parties.

9. Now, the only point which calls decision from this Court is whether the complainant had a legal right to ask OP No. 1 to give home delivery of the gas? The answer to this is in the negative.

10. The learned counsel for the complainant made a reference to Mark C-2, the Gas Connection Pass Book. That at page No. 39 of the said Gas Connection Pass Book, it has been recorded under the Heading “Services Available” that the consumer is entitled to get cylinder refill delivered and installed at his residence by deliveryman. It has also been recorded that the consumer gets a rebate of Rs. 2.00 per cylinder for non-home deliveries under special circumstances.

11. Now, it is clear that the customer-consumer/complainant had no legal right to compel or force OP No. 1 to deliver the gas cylinder at his residence. The complainant is only entitled to a rebate of Rs. 2.00 per cylinder for non-home deliveries under special circumstances. The opposite parties have specifically raised the plea that when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then supply is used to be given to the customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs.8/-, per rules of the Company. The said plea raised in the reply has been supported by the affidavit of Jagdish Singh – Ex. RW1/A.

12. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not allowed him a rebate for non-delivery of the gas cylinder, therefore, the present complaint is neither maintainable nor the complainant has any locus-standi to file the same as he cannot force the opposite parties to deliver the gas cylinder at his residence. It is the sweet-will of the opposite parties to give or not to give home delivery and the complainant is only entitled to get a rebate for non-home deliveries. More-so, the complainant has not produced on record any voucher issued by the opposite parties that the rebate of Rs. 8/- per cylinder for non-home deliveries had not been allowed to him, therefore, we are of the opinion that the non-delivery of the gas cylinder does not amount to deficient services.

13. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-16-2009, 10:10 AM

Ram Pal s/o Sh. Mukand Lal aged about 54 years r/o Village Sehrak, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Complainant

versus

1. Dasuya Gas Service, Gurunanak Nagar, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

2. Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Gas Limited, through Dasuya Gas Service, Guru Nanak Nagar, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Opposite Parties

1.

The complainant namely Ram Pal has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is having domestic cooking gas connection of HP bearing consume No. 511529.
2.

It is the case of the complainant that upto 25.8.2008, the gas was being supplied at the house of the complainant by OP No. 1, but suddenly in the month of September, 2008, the OP No. 1- Dasuya Gas Service stopped the home delivery of the gas to the complainant. The complainant contacted the officials of OP No. 2 on toll free No.18002333777, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. It is further the case of the complainant that he again contacted the sale officer of the opposite party on Phone No. 98155-36105 on 3.11.2008 for home delivery of the gas, but the official of the opposite party No. 2 also failed to give any satisfactory reply to the queries raised by the complainant regarding home delivery of the gas.
3.

It is the grouse of the complainant that he was forced to lift the gas from the go-down of OP No. 1. That the non-supply of cooking gas at the premises of the complainant is illegal. The opposite parties were requested to supply the cooking gas at the premises of the complainant, but of no consequence, hence this complaint.
4.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The preliminary objection with regard to concealment of material fact was raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the village of the complainant does not fall within delivery zone of opposite party. The delivery zone of the opposite party is within the MC limit, whereas the village of the complainant is more than 10 kms from the delivery zone. However, in order to facilitate the customer, when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then supply is used to be given to customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs. 8/-, per rules of the Company and Clause 7 of agreement between the parties. It is further replied that home delivery of gas was only given to the complainant on 1.12.2008, 12.1.2009 and 6.4.2009.
5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, gas connection pass-book – Mark C-2 (13 pages) and closed the evidence.
6.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh – Ex. RW1/A, agreements – Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
7.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
8.

The grouse of the complainant is that the OP No. 1 – Dasuya Gas Service suddenly in the month of September, 2008, stopped the home delivery of the gas to the complainant, as such he was forced to lift the gas from the godown. The opposite parties have raised the plea that the village of the complainant does not fall within the delivery zone of the opposite parties, as the delivery zone of the opposite parties is within the MC limit, whereas the village of the complainant is more than 10 kms from the delivery zone. The opposite parties have also raised the plea that in order to facilitate the customer, when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then the supply is used to be given to the customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs. 8/-, per rules of the Company and Clause 7 of agreement between the parties.
9.

Now, the only point which calls decision from this Court is whether the complainant had a legal right to ask OP No. 1 to give home delivery of the gas? The answer to this is in the negative.
10.

The learned counsel for the complainant made a reference to Mark C-2, the Gas Connection Pass Book. That at page No. 39 of the said Gas Connection Pass Book, it has been recorded under the Heading “Services Available” that the consumer is entitled to get cylinder refill delivered and installed at his residence by deliveryman. It has also been recorded that the consumer gets a rebate of Rs. 2.00 per cylinder for non-home deliveries under special circumstances.
11.

Now, it is clear that the customer-consumer/complainant had no legal right to compel or force OP No. 1 to deliver the gas cylinder at his residence. The complainant is only entitled to a rebate of Rs. 2.00 per cylinder for non-home deliveries under special circumstances. The opposite parties have specifically raised the plea that when there is sufficient supply of gas, then supply of gas is given to the villagers, but when the demand of gas is higher, then supply is used to be given to the customers from office/godown on rebate of Rs.8/-, per rules of the Company. The said plea raised in the reply has been supported by the affidavit of Jagdish Singh – Ex. RW1/A.
12.

It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not allowed him a rebate for non-delivery of the gas cylinder, therefore, the present complaint is neither maintainable nor the complainant has any locus-standi to file the same as he cannot force the opposite parties to deliver the gas cylinder at his residence. It is the sweet-will of the opposite parties to give or not to give home delivery and the complainant is only entitled to get a rebate for non-home deliveries. More-so, the complainant has not produced on record any voucher issued by the opposite parties that the rebate of Rs. 8/- per cylinder for non-home deliveries had not been allowed to him, therefore, we are of the opinion that the non-delivery of the gas cylinder does not amount to deficient services.
13.

As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

noor92000 · 05-04-2010, 11:25 AM

Dear sir,
My name is NURUZZAMAN SHAMSUZZOHA.I am a consumer of HP domestic gas and my consumer no. is 615807.My distributors name and address is as follows

DISTRIBUTOR CODE : 964730
VASCO GAS SERVICE
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD
12,DR MUKUND BUILDING
F.L GOMES ROAD
VASCO DA GAMA, GOA.

I had booked a cylinder on the 22-APR-10 and I was told by the dealer that the gas would be delivered within 8 days.During the course of the 8 day period the distributors delivery van came twice to deliver gas to my neighbors.On inquiring with the delivery man i was told that the dealers have not issued them order to give delivery of cylinder to me.After the completion of 8 day i called up the dealer and i was told that the gas would be delivered the next evening.The following evening i waited anxiously for the delivery van but there was no sight of them.On the following Monday ie on 3 -may-10 i went personally to their office and told them about this.The lady sitting there noted my address and assured me that the gas would be delivered that evening,but then the gas was not delivered.Today i called up the dealer again told them about their unprofessional behavior and the hardship i had to undergo due to their negligence but then she just kept the phone saying that the gas would be delivered today.

This is not the first instance of delayed delivery.Last time i had to call them repeatedly for 15 days twice a day to get the refilled cylinder.There seems to be a serious problem with this dealer as i have seen other consumers complaining about the same problem both in their office and also in my neighborhood.

Kindly please take corrective action against this dealer and help a number of consumers like me.

Unregistered · 01-08-2011, 11:28 AM

I have registered compliant against agency that In my house theft has been done by some body and they have taken away all material from my house also cylinder I Have several time visited to the agency als o send letter to ccc
core S3/03/1034 959 dt 18/3/10

Debaraj satapathy · 03-09-2011, 11:28 AM

Sir,

I would like to inform You that my LPG connection bearing consumer No-612458 is in the record of Smruti Gas, bhubaneswar . In each month while giving delivery the filled in cylinder, the Smruti Gas Distributor is always harassing me in many ways.For example they are giving delivery to me @ 35 days duration from the last delivery. Besides , the agent always cancelling my booking just after booking of 8-9 days by taking various pleas.So when I enquire regarding the previous booking, the manager is again booking the gas delivery and again taking the normal period to make delivery of my Gas. As a result on an average I am able to get the filled gas after a gap of 35-40 days. you can please check the record of booking and delivery from the record of Smruti Gas.

So please enquire the matter and do the need ful for the best interest of the consumer.

With regards
Debaraj Satapathy,1227-Basistha Nagar,Old Town, Bhubaneswar-751002