By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get cost and compensation due to the supply of defective gas cylinder.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite party in consumer No.LPG9929811. While so on 15.09.2014 when the complainant using the gas cylinder it got leak and burned and due to the fire blast the household items ie Mixy, grinder, electric wiring, induction cooker, mobile phone and some other electrical items were burned and damaged and thereby caused a loss about Rs.70,000/- and the house of the complainant also damaged and on seeing the fire blast the daughter of the complainant got mental depression and took treatment from the Chennalode Hospital and treatment is still continuing. The incident was reported to the 1^st opposite party and they advised to approach the 3^rd opposite party for compensation. On intimation the fire force came to the spot and the Village Officer inspected the spot and certificate was issued to that effect. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer and 3^rd opposite party is the insurance company of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party. Complainant submitted that they are jointly and severally liable to pay cost and compensation due to the supply of defective gas cylinder and consequential damages also. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,15,000/- as cost and compensation on various heads.

3. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and 3 filed version. Opposite party No.2 not appeared and not filed version hence opposite party declared ex-parte.

4. In the version opposite party No.1 stated that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This opposite party denies all the claims and allegations in the complaint. The claim in the complaint that there was leakage from the LPG cylinder by 6.00 am on 15.09.2014 which resulted in an ablaze in the complainant's house and thereby caused loss to the mixy/grinder electric wiring, induction cooker, mobile phone other electrical items, tea pot, bulbs etc are not fully true or correct. The further allegation in the complaint that as a result of the fire accident in the house the complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/- is also not true or correct and the complainant is put to strict proof as to the cause of the fire accident and the loss to the extent of Rs.70,000/- as alleged in the complaint. The further allegation in the complaint that the accident was occurred due to the supply of gas cylinders which is poor in quality is also incorrect and hence denied by this opposite party. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service or negligence in the supply of gas cylinder to the complainant at any point of time at the end of this Opposite party. To the knowledge of this opposite party the fire accident was occasioned only due to the negligent usage of the gas cylinder by the complainant. This opposite party is only a distribution agency at Kalpetta. The cylinders supplied by the 2^nd opposite party are being distributed to the customers, flawless and intact and as is where in the condition. This opposite party is not liable for any of the defects or short comings on the cylinders thus supplied by the 2^nd opposite party to this opposite party. Without prejudice to the contentions above it is submitted that in the event if this Honorable Court finds that the alleged leakage of the Cylinder was the reason for the fire accident claimed to have been took place, at the complainant's house it is submitted that all such LPG fire accidents are covered by the Insurance policy with respondent No.3 herein. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner.

5. This petition is filed as an experimental one and which lacks bonafides. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The fire accident can be due to many reasons. Unsafe storage of petroleum products, its unauthorized refilling of cylinder, poor electric wiring, negligent use of fire place etc., may also result fire accident in a house. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations raised in the complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Opposite party No.3 filed version and additional version stating that this opposite party denies all the material allegations and averments made in the petition. The petition is not maintainable either in Law or on facts. The petition has to be dismissed in limine. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and therefore this complaint is not maintainable. The third opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant as the policy does not cover the incident alleged in the complaint. Hence this opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. This opposite party has issued a policy for LP gas dealers policy in favour of 1^st opposite party vide policy No.440202/48/2014/2066 for the period from 20.10.2013 to 19.10.2014. As per the LPG dealers policy issued to the dealer and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, (section VI -(a) PUBLIC LIABILTY), the liability of the insurer is to indemnify the insured is Limited to the accidental death of or bodily injury to any person and/or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled LPG cylinder in the premises of the insured, customers or while such cylinders (including the empty cylinders) are transported from the insured's premises to the customers premises or vice versa. There for the liability is confined to the transport and installation alone is covered and not otherwise. The liability of the 3^rd opposite party is limited to the terms of the policy condition alone. This opposite Party denies the alleged accident and injuries as alleged by the complainant. The allegation of the accident on 15.09.2014 is to be proved by the complainant. The allegation regarding the Loss damages to the house and articles is also to be proved by the complainant and he has not sustained the damages as alleged in the complaint. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and claim of the complaint is not covered as per the policy issued by this opposite party. And there is no provision for getting compensation under the policy for the damage to third party property damage while in domestic use. The complainant has to prove the allegations made in the complaint. The allegation that there is deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party etc is utter false hood made only for the purpose of the case. The further allegation that the complainant has sustained damage for the articles worth Rs.70,000/- is incorrect and false and he is not entitled for the same. Further the amount of compensation towards mental agony to the family Rs.20,000/- etc is high and exorbitant and he is not entitled for the same. Rs.20,000/- claimed for repair charge of the house is also high and not entitled for the same. This opposite party submits that even if the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 alone are liable. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled for the compensation or cost of the proceedings. The complainant has suppressed the material facts and he has filed this complainant with some ulterior motives. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party as alleged in the complaint. In addition to the contentions taken by this opposite party in its original version, the following contentions are taken as additional plea. The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable in Law and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice to the contentions taken by this opposite party in its original version, this opposite party submits that on information about the alleged accident in the house of the complainant, the surveyor Sri. C. Venugopal inspected the house and assessed the loss and a report is submitted to this opposite party. The copy of the report is submitted along with this version. The surveyor assessed the Loss as Rs.21,900/-.

7. The surveyor assessed the loss and filed report without prejudice to the terms and conditions of policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and claim of the complaint is not covered as per the policy issued by this opposite party. And there is no provision for getting compensation under the policy for the damage to third party property damage while in domestic use. There for the Liability is confined to the transport and installation alone is covered and not otherwise. The liability of the 3^rd opposite party is limited to the terms of the policy condition alone.

8. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Form issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, which shows that after 41 days of incident the gas cylinder is replaced. Ext.A2 is the Certificate issued by the Fire Force Officer, wherein it is reported that on the formal enquiry a loss of Rs.5,000/- caused due to fire blast. Ext.A3 is the Certificate issued by the Village Officer, Where the Village officer reported that due to this incident about 40,000 rupees loss is caused due to the damage of some home goods.

9. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 document is marked. Ext.B1 is the policy certificate which given by the opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 it shows that the opposite party No.1 insured with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 already declared ex-parte. Opposite party No.3 filed proof affidavit and Ext.B2 and B3 documents were marked and not adduced oral evidence. Ext.B2 is the Insurance Surveryor's report which shows that opposite party No.3 has appointed a Surveyor to report regarding the incident and damages. The Surveyor reported that “it was suspected that leakage of gas from the cylinder could have caused the fire when they fit the stove fire spread in the kitchen and the adjacent hall, the heat and fire caused damages to plastic items such as buckets, electrical wiring and switches, mixy and induction cooker also”. He assessed the loss of Rs.21,900/- on damages to various items. Ext.B3 is the Insurance policy and conditions.

10. On considering the complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

11. Point No.1:- Ext.A2, A3 and Ext.B2 clearly prove the incident and the Ext.B2 report clearly shows the exact loss of each items and the total damages calculated is Rs.21,900/-. It is the independent surveyor who is a qualified licensed surveyor and loss assessor. It can be believed in toto and in the aspect of inconvenience and mental agony caused to the members of the family is to be taken into consideration. If such a blast occurs there is no doubt that there should be more inconvenience and mental agony to all the members of the family. So the Forum is of the opinion that the incident and the loss is undoubtedly proved beyond doubt and now the question arises who is liable to compensate for the same. OPW1 admitted from the witness box that the fire was caused due for the leakage in the cylinder supplied by the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 admitted that if the fire was caused due to to defect in the cylinder they are responsible for that and further submitted that if any loss is sustained to the complainant the 3^rd opposite party who is the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. But the opposite party No.3 contented that the policy does not cover the incident alleged in the complaint. The policy was valid at the time of incident and stated that the liability of opposite party No.3 is only to indemnify the insured to the accidental death or badly injury to any person or accidental damages to the property caused by or arising from installation of gas cylinder in the premises of the insured and customers. More over the opposite party No.3 in his version and affidavit it is admitted that the incident was occurred while installing the cylinder by the complainant and more over the opposite party No.3 has deputed a Surveyor to report about the incident and assessed the damages caused. The Surveyor also reported that “the fire broke out on 15.09.2014 at 6 AM when the house wife charged the stove after keeping the vessel on the stove and she went out of the kitchen to the next room within a short span of time there was a blow of fire from the stove, fire spread to the kitchen and to the hall adjacent to the kitchen and so many properties also damaged.

12. Hence we opine that after the incident and on a report of Village Officer and Surveyor's report not giving the actual loss and compensation to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2 & 3. Hence Point No.1 is found accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.2 & 3 they are liable to pay the loss and damages and also liable to pay cost and compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.21,900/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand and Nine Hundred) as loss and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation and repair charges of the house and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of this complaint till payment within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of October 2015.

Date of Filing: 04.10.2014..

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Abdul Azeez. Complainant.

PW2. George. Village Officer, Vengapally.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Judy. P. A. Manager, Kabani Indane Gas Agency.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Form issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

A2. Certificate issued by the Fire Force officer. Dt:29.09.2014.

A3. Certificate issued by Village Officer.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Copy of the Insurance Policy Certificate.

B2. Insurance Surveyor's Report. Dt:01.11.2014.

B3. Copy of Insurance Policy and conditions.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-