ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
This appeal filed by Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) is directed against an order dated 06/09/2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane dismissing Consumer Complaint No.116 of 2006.
[2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:-
Complainant is a ‘consumer’ of Respondent/Opponent No.1 – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LPG Company), who provided a LPG connection to the Complainant’s house. On 02/11/2004, one LGP connection was supplied to the Complainant and it was connected to the Complainant’s stove on 18/11/2004. Complainant suspected that there was some leakage of gas and, therefore, informed the LPG dealer viz. Respondent/Opponent No.2, whose technician visited the Complainant’s house on 24/11/2004 and he confirmed that there was a leakage from the valve of cylinder in question. He carried out necessary repairs. However, the Complainant continued to get smell of gas and he again complained to the Dealer. Technician asked the Complainant to use the cylinder certifying it to be safe. On 27/11/2004, gas spread all over the Complainant’s house when the Complainant was away from his house. At about 11:15 a.m. an explosion of gas cylinder took place. By the time the Complainant returned at 12:15 hours, neighbors had already gathered and the fire was being extinguished. It was observed that the cylinder which exploded was the second non-used cylinder delivered to the Complainant on 24/11/2004. Complainant suffered a loss of property worth Rs.6,86,500/- as certified by ‘Panchanama’ carried out. The Complainant, therefore, alleged that there was negligence on the part of Respondents/Opponents Nos.1 and 2 in not replacing the defective cylinder on 18/11/2014 and, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.6,86,500/-. Respondents/Opponents Nos.3 are the Insurers, who had possibly provided insurance cover to the Respondents/Opponents Nos.1 and 2 viz. the LPG Company and its Dealer.
[3] The complaint was contested by the Respondents/Opponents Nos.1 and 2. They stated that there was no negligence. It was also stated that Respondents/Insurance Companies were liable only in respect of cylinder which is connected to a stove and not in respect of a spare gas cylinder.
[4] After considering rival contentions, the District Forum came to hold that second gas cylinder burst possibly due to electrical short-circuit and the Respondents/Opponents were not responsible for the said damage. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the consumer complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the Complainant is before us.
[5] We have heard Adv. Uday B. Wavikar on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, Adv. A. V. Vishwanathan on behalf of Respondent No.1/LPG Company, Adv. Smt. Sukruta Chimalkar on behalf of Respondent No.2/Dealer, Adv. S. R. Singh on behalf of Respondent No.3 and Adv. Ashok Baldwa for the Respondent No.4. With the help of learned counsels present before us, we have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.
[6] In this case, it was a specific complaint of the Appellant/Complainant that there was a leakage from the gas cylinder which had been connected to the stove. There is no complaint that there was any leakage from the second gas cylinder which had been supplied to the Complainant on 24/11/2004. Had there been any leakage from the second cylinder, the Complainant would certainly have noticed it during the period 24/11/2004 to 27/11/2004. It is also not in dispute that the cylinder from which leakage was alleged was in fact, intact even after the fire. The cylinder which had not been used since it was delivered on 24/11/2004 and about which there was no complaint had exploded. The Complainant’s contention that had the cylinder which was leaking been replaced, he would not have suffered loss is, to say the least, illogical. If the cylinder was leaking and if due to any spark the gas leaked in the room caught fire, such fire would have ordinarily gone to the source of leakage i.e. cylinder which was connected to the stove and that cylinder would have burst. Therefore, the Complainant’s contention about deficiency in service, in not replacing the cylinder which had been connected to the stove is not correct since that could not be the cause of mishap.
[7] It appears that the cylinder which had burst was possibly near the refrigerator. It was stated that in a refrigerator, its normal working results in emission of sparks at periodical intervals and the gas which had leaked may have caught fire due to sparks emitted from the refrigerator during the course of normal working of the refrigerator. Even if it is taken for a while that natural spark from the refrigerator ignited the leaked gas, it is not clear to us as to how there could be deficiency in service about this cylinder since there was no complaint of leakage of gas from the second gas-cylinder which caught fire or burst. From the complaint as framed it cannot be, therefore, held that there was any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Respondents/Opponents Nos.1 and 2. In view of this, we find no error or infirmity in the order under challenge passed by the learned District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 13th October, 2014
