Haryana

Karnal

CC/571/2019

Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anshul Chaudhary

12 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 571 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.02.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:12.01.2023

 

Krishan Lal son of Shri Sudhan Ram, resident of village Bastli, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051.

 

2.     Parvesh Gas Services Sambhli Road, Nissing, District Karnal through its proprietor.

 

3.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company registered office at 414, Veer Savarkar Marg near Sidhi Vinayak Temple Prabhadevi Mumbai.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Anshul Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Surender Chauhan, counsel for the OP no.2.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the holder of Gas Connection bearing SV no.7784 issued by the OP no.2. OP no.1 is running the Gas Agency under the control of the OP no.1. The complainant and his family members are using the Gas Cylinder for domestic purposes. On 28.03.2019 there was leakage problem in the Gas Cylinder. Complainant approached to the OPs and narrated the whole facts regarding the leakage of gas but OP no.2 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On 29.03.2019 the mother of complainant used the gas cylinder but suddenly the gas cylinder caught fire. The complainant made a telephonic call to the OP no.2 and narrated about the incident, but none from the side of OP no.2 came there, due to which the fire spread and the mother of complainant got into the fire. After this incident the complainant reported the matter to the police of Police Station Nissing and the police of the Police Station Nissing has lodged the DDE no.17 dated 12.04.2019. After the incident the complainant took his mother in the hospital, due to the serious condition the mother of complainant shifted to PTBD Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences PGIMS, Rohtak, where the doctors concerned have declared the mother of complainant has died and conducted the PMR no.394/2019. Due to said incident, complainant has suffered financial loss, because the household articles lying in the house has totally burnt and the other of complainant has also died due to fire burn. The fire occurred in the gas cylinder due to the negligence on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the mother of complainant has received the family pension after the death of her husband. The complainant has lost his mother, who is the head of the family and also deprived from her love and affection. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, and all OPs are jointly and severally liable. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 09.08.2019 upon the complainant but it also did not yield any result. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation for the love and affection of the mother of the complainant and  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that complainant is registered consumer OP no.2. The delivery, supply, distribution and installation of such LPG cylinders are carried on by and between the distributor and customer on a principal to principal basis. The alleged accident was taken place on 29.03.2019 at 0700 hours while as per system the latest refill was delivered on 01.03.2019 before accident date which has been used by the customer for around a month. As per report submitted by Investigating Officer, the stove was below the level of cylinder and circumstances indicated the fire was caused due to unregulated flow of LPG which got accumulated at floor of the room. The room was closed and was opened in the morning by the customer’s mother for making tea. The moment user ignited matchstick near burner, which was placed on ground level, there may be instantaneous fire. As per Investigating Officer, the cylinder was delivered after check and the o-ring was found intact after the accident. No burn sign was on the body of cylinder. The Hose used was also non-standard and the PR used was of HPCL. At the time of investigation, 9 kg LPG left in the cylinder after being used of it for over one month. But as per record and consumption analysis 12 refill is used in a year by consumer so in the circumstances possibility of alleged accident cannot be ruled out with some other unauthorized refill from some other source. Lodging DDR after delay of 14-15 days arise suspect of concerned story to extract claim on false facts and grounds. It is further stated that complainant got prepared a false post mortem report in connivance with the authorities. Despite various demand complainant did not produce the same to process insurance claim. The complainant filed the present complaint just to extort money on false and frivolous grounds. It is further stated that all the cylinders are checked to confirm to the various safety norms, before they are taken in use and also while, they are refilled and leave the bottling plants for supply and distribution. It is further stated that when the empty cylinders are sent for refilling the cylinders are first visually inspected and cylinders that are more than 5 to 7 years and those that are dented and unfit for use are segregated and removed. Thereafter, the empty cylinders are washed before they are taken for refilling. The cylinders are refilled and after filling, the weight is checked through electronic balance. At this stage, the valve and the ‘o’ ring are checked through compact Valve testing. Any cylinder, which does not meet the norms, is segregated and sent for replacement of valve/’o’ ring or weight correction as the case may be.  It is only the cylinders with correct weight and that are leakage free that are passed for dispatch on which the safety caps are put and sealed online. It is further pleaded that the Hotplate was kept below the level of cylinder and the non-standard Hose pipe and Pressure Regulator of HPCL C. was used in the LPG installation, so present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, if for unseen reason, in facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission comes to another conclusion, in that eventuality, the OP no.1 is insured with OP no.3. Being insurer, insurance company is legally bound to honour the award, if any, on behalf of insured. It is further stated that Distributor has sent two registered letters dated 14.10.2019 and 02.12.2019 to the aggrieved party followed by a letter no.IOC/KAO/KLSA/SP/4 dated 09.06.2020 by IOCL, but inspite of regular follow up, complainant has not responded on the issue till date. 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.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that connection no.7784 was issued by OP no.2 under the control of OP no.1 and the complainant never used the cylinder issued by OP no.2 and the cylinder allegedly used by the complainant might have been procured from some other sources and complainant is under legal obligation to prove that the cylinder which caught fire was actually issued by OP no.2. The complainant never reported that there is a leakage in the gas cylinder. The mother of complainant is living separately from the complainant in a separate accommodation and file has taken place in the house of mother of complainant. So, the complainant has no right to file the present complaint. The mother of complainant might have used the cylinder procured from some other sources. If it is admitted to be correct that the said cylinder was delivered by OP no.2, in that eventuality, the complainant was not competent to handover the cylinder to his mother. The complainant has not used the fuel pipe and regulator supplied by OP no.1. It is specifically mentioned that at the time of incident the regulator was found in use of Hindustan Petroleum and now the complainant has prepared a false and concocted story and has concealed the true and material facts. It is the sole negligence on the part of complainant and his mother and complainant is not entitled to seek any compensation. It is further pleaded that OP o.2 is insured with National Insurance Company. If this Commission comes to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for compensation, in that eventuality, the insurance company of the OP is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. The other allegations made in the complainant have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 filed its written version and raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that till date no claim has been lodged by the complainant in the office of OP. No intimation regarding death of deceased due to leakage of Gas has been lodged with the OPs, which amounts to gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that as per the investigation report submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it is well established that at the time of loss, LPG Hose was of Non-Standard Plastic hose and Regulator was issued by HPCL not by Indian Oil. Furthermore, at the time of handed over the cylinder there was no leakage and cylinder was handing over, after full inspection and to the satisfaction of consumer. The accident has taken place due to sole negligence of deceased himself, so no liability of OP is made out and present complaint deserves dismissal.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of pension slip of deceased Ex.C1, newspaper cutting Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 20.11.2020 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raghavendra Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of agreement Ex.OP1, copy of policy schedule Ex.OP2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP3, copy of booking and delivery schedule Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 10.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Atma Swroop, Manager Ex.OP2/A, reply of legal notice Ex.OP2/B, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2/C, authority letter Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence on 28.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Divyam Suri, Legal Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of policy schedule Ex.R1, copy of investigation report Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           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.

11.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is the holder of Gas Connection issued by the OP no.2. On 28.03.2019 there was leakage problem in the Gas Cylinder. Complainant approached to the OPs and told in this regard. On 29.03.2019 the mother of complainant used the gas cylinder but suddenly the gas cylinder caught fire. Due to which the fire spread and the mother of complainant got into the fire and also died due to fire burn. The fire occurred in the gas cylinder due to the negligence on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per investigation report, the stove was at the below level of cylinder and circumstances indicated the fire was caused due to unregulated flow of LPG which got accumulated at floor of the room. The room was closed and was opened in the morning by the customer’s mother for making tea. The moment user ignited matchstick near burner, which was placed on ground level, there may be instantaneous fire. As per Investigating Officer, the cylinder was delivered after check and the o-ring was found intact after the accident. No burn sign was on the body of cylinder. The Hose used was also non-standard and the PR used was of HPCL. At the time of investigation, 9 kg LPG left in the cylinder after use of it for over one month. But as per record and consumption analysis 12 refill is used in a year by consumer so in the circumstances possibility of alleged accident cannot be ruled out with some other unauthorized refill from some other source. Lodging DDR after delay of 14-15 days arise suspect of concerned story to extract claim on false facts and grounds. He further argued that complainant got prepared a false post mortem report in connivance with the authorities and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that gas connection was issued by OP no.2 under the control of OP no.1 and the complainant never used the cylinder issued by OP no.2 and complainant is under legal obligation to prove that the cylinder which caught fire was actually issued by OP no.2. The complainant never reported that there is a leakage in the gas cylinder. At the time of incident the regulator was found in use of Hindustan Petroleum and now the complainant has prepared a false and concocted story and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           Learned counsel for OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that no claim has been lodged by the complainant in the office of OP. No intimation regarding death of deceased due to leakage of Gas has been lodged with the OPs, which amounts to gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. He further argued that as per the investigation report submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it is well established that at the time of loss, LPG Hose was Non-Standard Plastic hose and Regulator was issued by HPCL not by Indian Oil. Furthermore, at the time of handed over the cylinder there was no leakage and cylinder was handed over, after full inspection and to the satisfaction of consumer. The accident has taken place due to sole negligence of deceased himself, so no liability of OP is made out and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

16.           As per post mortem examination report dated 12.04.2019, the cause of death of patient Vidya Devi is burn injury. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that fire occurred in the gas cylinder due to the negligence on the part of the OPs.

17.           The onus to prove his version relies upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has also relied upon the newspaper cutting only. There is no expert/technical opinion on file to ascertain that incident has taken place due to negligence on the part of the OPs. Rather, OPs have got investigated the matter by way of appointing Assistant Manager LPG (sales) Area Manager and Field Officer, who visited the spot and prepared investigation report Ex.OP3 dated 04.04.2019. In that report, it has been mentioned that cylinder was delivered on 01.03.2019 and it was used by the customer for nearby 30 days. Cylinder was checked before delivery and the O-ring was found intact after the accident. There is no burn marks on the cylinder body. The hose used is also  of non-standard plastic hose pipe and regulator was of HPCL. There is still approximately 9 kg LPG left in the cylinder.

18.           From the above, investigation report, it has been proved that the non-standard plastic hose pipe and regulator has been used. Furthermore, the cylinder was delivered on 01.03.2019 and accident took place on 29.03.2019 and at the time of accident approximately 9 Kg LG was left. Meaning, thereby, consumer has consumed the gas continuously for 17 days without any problem. If there was any defect in the cylinder, the accident would had taken place on the first time of using the said cylinder and cylinder would had been blast but in the present case there is no blast of cylinder and there is no burning marks on it. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

19.           Thus, in view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the 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.

Dated:12.01.2023

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer