DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 563 of 08-12-2011

Decided on : 29-07-2011

Jaswinder Singh, aged 28 years S/o Jagpal Singh R/o Village Jangirana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Sangat Indane Service, Sangat, through its Proprietor Rupinderjit Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o House No. 197/3, Shant Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

2. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, 3079/3, J.B. Tito Marg, Sadik Nagar, New Delhi through its General Manager

3. National Insurance Company Limited, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Regional Manager

4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bathinda, through its Manager

    

   .... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Sh. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Harpal Singh, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Navjot Singh, counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 4.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is holder of LPG Gas connection bearing consumer No. 226131 registered with opposite party No. 1 who is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2. On the basis of registration, the opposite party No. 1 supplied a gas connection vide Customer Subscription Voucher No. 2393212 dated 20-02-2008/6131. The opposite party No. 1 being dealer of opposite party No. 2 supplied one gas cylinder, pipe, regulator and gas stove to the complainant and charged for the same. Since then, the complainant had been getting supply against his aforesaid gas connection from time to time by making payment. On 18-01-2010, the Supervisor/employee of opposite party No. 1 visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the gas cylinder pipe, regulator, gas stove by receiving Rs. 40/- from him vide receipt No. 4532 dated 18-01-2010 which was to be carried out every two years as per Sudha Joshi committe, approved by Ministry of Petroleum, Govt. of India. On 17-04-2010, the wife of the complainant was working in the kitchen and she noticed fire on the gas pipe and gas cylinder. She ran away immediately out of the house alongwith other members to escape themselves. Thereafter, the gas cylinder supplied by the opposite parties blasted after catching the fire and due to this blast, kitchen alongwith all utensils and electronic articles and one room alongwith house hold articles were totally destroyed on account of burst of gas cylinder. Due to the said incident, the house of the complainant has been badly ruined and this matter was hotly highlighted by the media. The aforesaid incident has taken place on dated 17-04-2010 i.e. just within three months of the inspection by the supervisor/employee of opposite party No. 1. The complainant alleged that due to said fire, the kitchen and other rooms of the house of the complainant have been very badly damaged and all this happened due to supply of defective gas cylinder, regulator, gas stove and gas pipe which were of poor quality/sub-standard and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant alleged that the incident has taken place on 17-04-2010 due to the deficient service on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 who is the dealer of opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the opposite party No. 1 is insured and as such, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation claimed by him. The complainant has informed and reported the matter to opposite party No. 1 and P.S. Sangat and a Rapat No. 11 dated 18-04-2010 was entered by the Police Post Nandgarh i.e. P.S. Sangat. The complainant intimated about the incident to opposite party No. 1 and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 deputed Mr. Suresh Kumar to inspect the spot and to assess the damages suffered by the complainant. The said Mr. Suresh Kumar inspected the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,78,000/- and submitted his report dated 20-04-2010 with the opposite parties. The report has been submitted on 20-04-2010 but till today, no step has been taken by the opposite parties to pay the loss. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 22-09-2010 to opposite party No. 1, but to no effect. In the first week of October, 2010, the complainant has received reply of said legal notice and made a excuse that the matter is pending between the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and opposite party No. 3. Thereafter the complainant sent another legal notice dated 12-10-2010 but the opposite party No. 1 did not give satisfactory reply rather threatened the complainant to withdraw the said legal notice. The complainant alleged that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have declared that the matter is still pending with the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No. 3 and sent letter dated 15-10-2010 vide No. 401000-SC-12.2010 to Divisional Office, XI, 3^rd Floor, Sterling Cinema Building 65, Murzban Road, Fort Mumbai 400001 and refused to hear the complainant. Hence, he has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite party No. 1 filed separate written reply and took legal objection that as per news items published in daily newspaper 'Sach Kahoon' dated 19-04-2010, no accident has taken place with the burst of gas cylinder; connection No. 226131 has not been issued by the opposite party to any consumer ; the opposite party No. 1 is an authorised dealer of The Indian Oil Corporation (opposite party No. 2) and the products of this Oil Corporation are fully insured with National Insurance Company (opposite party No. 3) , so the liability to pay the compensation, if any, to the complainant is of opposite party No. 3 being the insurer of opposite party No. 2. It has been submitted that there is no proof that any accident, has happened with the equipments supplied by opposite party No. 1. As per Subscription Voucher, double cylinder connection was issued to the consumer/complainant. The opposite party No. 1 always supply high standard equipments supplied by opposite party No. 2. It has been submitted that connection No. 226131 has not been issued to any consumer so far by opposite party No. 1. However, the complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 about an accident at his house, on which it immediately responded and informed higher authorities of Indian Oil Corporation about the same and hence there is no lapse in the duty of opposite party No. 1. The complainant has not mentioned the number of gas cylinder. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove that he was using any equipment supplied by opposite party No. 1. The complainant has lodged rapat No. 11 in order to save his skin from civil, criminal or other liability. The opposite party No. 1 acted quickly and done his part as soon as possible to inform higher authorities of opposite party No. 2, so the opposite party No. 2 deputed Mr. Suresh Kumar AM (LPG-S) Bathinda to inspect the spot and it is for opposite party No. 3 to act on the report of Mr. Suresh Kumar, being the insurer.

3. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written reply and took preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and as per the agreement entered into between the Distributor i.e. opposite party No. 1 and the Corporation, the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent or on account of the Corporation. Therefore, in view of Clause 17 of the contract, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be made liable for the negligent act, if any, of opposite party No. 1. In this regard, the opposite party No. 2 has taken support of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. CPC Kerala 1994(1) CPC 477 and of Hon'ble National Commission in the case reported as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Aklesh Kumar Bansal etc.,1995(1) CPC 335. It has been pleaded that as per Clause 15 of the agreement, it is for the distributor i.e. opposite party No. 1 to take Insurance policy from the Insurance Company at his own cost. The opposite party No. 1 has taken “Public liability Policy” from opposite party No. 3. It has been admitted that a blast took place in the house of complainant on 17-04-2010. The matter was reported by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 and thereafter opposite party No. 2 appointed Sh. Suresh Kumar, Asstt. Manager, LPG (S) to investigate the matter. The said Sh. Suresh Kumar, inspected the spot and submitted detailed report with regard to accident. According to the report, accident took place on 17-04-2010 in the house of the complainant at around 19.30 Hrs. As per statement of wife of the complainant, after putting milk vessel on gas stove, she came out of kitchen and when she again visited the kitchen after 5-6 minutes, she saw flames in the kitchen near the cylinder knob and pipe. As per the report of the Asstt. Manager LPG (S) from physical verification at the premises of the complainant, it was observed that there was no equipment fault since the cylinder which was in use at the time of accident, replaced by the customer on 15-04-2010 and from 15-04-2010 to 17-04-2010 there was no leakage/smell from the cylinders as confirmed by the complainant. It has been admitted that because of blast, roof of kitchen and adjoining store was damaged, but denied that gas cylinder regulator and gas pipe were defective. The equipment supplied by opposite party No. 2 was of best quality.

4. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written statement and pleaded that on receipt of information, the opposite party No. 3 immediately appointed M/s. Mittal Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the same to the tune of Rs. 70,633/-. As per policy, the liability of Insurance company for property damage is maximum Rs. 1,00,000/- and after deduction of excess clause, the amount payable in one case is maximum to the tune of Rs. 70,633/- and after deducting of excess of Rs. 10,000/- an amount of Rs. 60,633/- would be payable subject to production of inspection report by Indian Oil Corporation i.e. opposite party No. 2, which has not yet been received. The dealer i.e. opposite party No. 1 might have taken an LPG Dealers Package policy, which has also not yet been received. In that case, contribution from both the policies would be applicable. It has been pleaded that the claim is pending for decision for want of required documents. There is no delay on the part of opposite party No. 3.

5. The opposite party No. 4 has also filed separate written reply and pleaded that complainant has not claimed any relief against opposite party No. 4 in the entire complaint nor opposite party No. 1 has got opposite party No. 4 impleaded as a party in the present complaint. Moreover, the loss is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy as only accidental damage to property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled LPG cylinder in the premises of customer of insured is covered whereas in the present case the loss has not occurred during any installation of LPG cylinder, rather the loss has occurred much after the installation. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of opposite party No. 1. No notice has been given nor any claim has been lodged with opposite party No. 4 as per the terms and conditions and limitation provided under the policy. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 4 as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.4.

6. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

7. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

8. The complainant is holder of LPG connection bearing No. 226131vide Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 of opposite party No. 1 who is authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2. He has been getting supply against the said connection from time to time by making payment. On 18-01-2010, the Supervisor/employee of opposite party No. 1 visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the gas cylinder pipe, regulator, gas stove by receiving Rs. 40/- from the complainant vide Ex. C-18 receipt No. 4532 dated 18-01-2010. At 8.30 p.m on 17-04-2010, the wife of the complainant kept the milk on gas stove to boil and went outside of the kitchen. When she returned in the kitchen, she found that pressure regulator of the cylinder caught fire. The neighbour tried to extinguish the fire but to no effect. After about 15-20 minutes the LPG cylinder exploded and the complainant suffered loss on account of property as well as house hold goods.

9. Sh. Rupinderjit Singh, proprietor of M/s. Sangat Indan Service has stated in para No. 1 of his affidavit Ex. R-1 that connection 226131 has not been issued to any consumer whereas the record Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 placed on file proves that Jaswinder Singh, complainant is the holder of LPG connection bearing No. 226131 since 20-02-2008. The said Rupinderjit Singh has deposed in para No. 5 of his aforesaid affidavit that he is an authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 and the products of opposite party No. 2 are insured with opposite party No. 3. The gas agency i.e. opposite party No. 1 is insured with New India Insurance Co. i.e. opposite party No. 4.

10. The grievances of the complainant is that due to the explosion of gas cylinder supplied by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, he has suffered loss and he is entitled to recover it from them. The opposite party No. 1 & 2 are shifting their liability on each other. As per guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation, opposite party No. 2 Ex. R-6 i.e. mandatory checks, the LPG connection i.e. cylinder, regulator and pipe etc. were checked by the representative of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 as per receipt Ex. C-18 on 18-01-2010. The incident in the house of the complainant took place on 17-04-2010. The complainant intimated the opposite party No. 1 who onward informed the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has also produced on file a copy of DDR vide Ex. C-17 lodged in connection with the said incident. The opposite party No. 2 deputed Sh. Suresh Kumar, Asstt Manager, LPG Sales, of opposite party No. 2, to investigate the matter. Sh. Suresh Kumar visited the house of the complainant and submitted his detailed report vide Ex. R-17 with opposite party No. 2. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under :-

    “...... Report dated 21-04-2010

    ...... Date of Accident – 17-04-2010

    ..... Property Lost/Damaged – Kitchen and adjoining store damaged badly.

    .. ... Gas Customer – Sh. Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagpal Singh, Village Jangirana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

    .... Distributors Name , Town – Sangat Indane service, Main Bazar, Near Bus stand Sangat Mandi.

    .... Pooja and Cooking- All in one place - No

    .....Gas Connection - IOC

    .... 3.2 Cyl. Involved in accident – Two

    ..... Type of Value – SC Valve make KDC 9195490 025 A06

    .....Hot Plate – Burnt

    .... Rubber Tubing – Burnt

    ..... Pressure Regulator Valve- Burnt

    ...Sr. No. of cylinder – 414125

    .... Date of Last Testing – Could not be ascertained since the cylinder was profusely burnt.

    .... Was Hot Plate in clean condition – No

    ..... Cylinder value/pressure regulator knob closed at night before retiring for bed – Yes

    ..... Consumers aware of consequences of ignoring the warning given by gas smell – Yes

    .... Rubber Tubing Last Replaced, How many years – Suraksha Rubber Tube – was also installed at the time of taking the connection on 20- 02-2008.

    .... Physical condition of Tubing – Bad and Burnt

    .... Whether the installation was checked by Distributor's mechanic – Yes, Checked by the delivery boy on 18-01-2010 during mandatory drive.

    Causes – The wife of customer after putting milk vessel on the Gas Stove was out of the kitchen, when she again visited the kitchen after 5/6 minutes, she saw flames in the kitchen near the cylinder's knob and pipe as stated by her during my visit. Source of ignition could not be ascertained.

    Analysis – The cylinder was put in use on 15-04-2010 and there was no leakage and no smell upto 17-04-2010 as stated by the wife of the customer. Question of equipment fault i.e. cylinder and PR does not arise.”

11. A perusal of above said report reveals that when no discrepancy was found on the part of the complainant, as mentioned above, then how at last, the said officer arrived at the conclusion that question of equipment fault does not arise.

12. Thereafter M/s. Mittal Suyveyor Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda, was deputed by National Insurance Co. Ltd., i.e. opposite party No. 3 to conduct survey and assess the loss as the opposite party No. 2 has taken 'Public Liability Policy for Oil Industries' Ex. R-3. M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., visited the spot and assessed the loss,submitted their detailed survey report Ex. C-13. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereunder :-

    “....Preliminary

    ...The claim relates to explosion of Gas Cylinder at resident of S. Jasvinder singh situated at Village Jangirana who is a customer of the insured, in which his property reported to have damaged.

    ...Occurrence :

    The loss as stated by Jasvinder Singh and as per inquiries made occurred on 17-04-2010 at about 8.30 p.m. His wife had kept the milk to boil, on the LPG cooking range. When she came in the kitchen she saw that the regulator of the cylinder caught fire. She raised hue and cry. The neighbors tried to extinguish the fire with mud and sand, but to no avail. After about 15-20 minutes the LPG cylinder exploded, with the impact of explosion the walls of the kitchen and adjoining store room fell and the the roof got uprooted.

    ...Position at Survey

    ..At the time of survey, everything was lying as it is. The loss was discussed with Jasvinder Singh in detail. The site of loss was photographed and measurements were taken. The statements of neighbors, S. Jagsir Singh & S. Gurpeet Singh recorded at the time of survey are enclosed with English Translation. We also visited M/s. Sangat Indane Service, Sangat Mandi and photographed the remains of exploded cylinder, cooking range, damaged empty cylinder and gas regulator.

    ...Police Report

    As already stated, the police was informed about the incident immediately after the explosion. The police has registered the DDR No. 11 dated 21-04-2010.

    ....On the basis of physical verification, detailed verification of the documents and after making the requisite adjustments for depreciation and salvage, the loss is assessed as .......Rs. 70,633/-.”

13. The opposite parties have produced in their evidence affidavit Ex. R-15 of Sh. Parmod Mittal, Director of M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda, wherein in para Nos. 3 to 6, he has deposed :-

    “3. That M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Limited was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss caused due to explosion of gas cylinder at the residence of S. Jasvinder Singh, complainant, by National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    4. That the total loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 70,633/-. The details of loss are given in the survey report dated 25-05-2010, copy of which is Ex. C-13. The survey report may please be treated as part of this affidavit.

    5. That there is an excess clause of Rs. 10,000/- in the insurance policy and as such after deducting the excess of Rs. 10,000/-, the claim is payable to the tune of Rs. 60,633/- subject to fulfillment of requirements of policy conditions.

    6. That the survey report is correct as per actual loss suffered by the complainant in this case”

14. In view of what has been discussed above and a perusal of record reveals that complainant suffered loss on account of explosion of gas cylinder which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. Hence, both the opposite parties i.e. 1 & 2 are equally liable to pay the losses suffered by the complainant as master is also liable for the acts of the servant. As mentioned above, the surveyor has specifically mentioned in his survey report that complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 70,633/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements has taken pains to emphasize that report of surveyor is an important piece of document and evidence which can be brushed aside by sufficient reasoning. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs. 70,633/- .The complainant has not been made aware of the terms and conditions of the policy at any stage,thus the opposite parties cannot deduct Rs.10,000/- as excess clause. As already discussed above and admitted by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, both of them have taken insurance from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 respectively.

15. The objection taken by opposite party No. 2 that it is not liable as per the agreement for distribution effected between it and the distributor i.e. opposite party No. 1 because as per the transaction entered into between the Distributor i.e. opposite party No. 1 and the Corporation, the Distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as principal and not as an agent and as per distributorship agreement it is for the distributor to take insurance policy, is not tenable, because as mentioned above, the master is always liable for the acts of the servant. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 has not produced any evidence on file to prove that it supplied the equipments defect free and later on lapse occurred on the part of opposite party no. 1.

16. Similarly, the objection taken by opposite party No. 4 that no claim was lodged with opposite party No. 4 by opposite party No. 1 and under the policy, the loss caused by or arising from installation of gas cylinder was covered but in the present case, it has no where been proved that the loss occurred during installation of any gas cylinder, is also not tenable in view of Section VII “Public Liability” of Insurance policy Ex. R-13 which reads as under :-

    “The company will indemnify the Insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured at the Company's written consent in respect of accidental death or bodily injury to any person other than a person under the Insured's service and Insured's family members and/of accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured's customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured's are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises.........”

17. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts.

18. In the result, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost against all the opposite parties. The opposite parties directed to pay Rs. 70,633/- being actual loss suffered by the complainant on account of deficient service provided by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, to the complainant.

19. The opposite parties are liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant jointly and severally within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

29-07-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

( Sukhwinder kaur ) Member

Member