BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, 29th November 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 18 / 2016
Gajalla Nagasudarshan Reddy, S/o G. Suryanarayana Reddy,
Aged about 32 years, Permanent resident of D.No. 4-4-303,
Near Sreerama Hall Road, Pulivendualla Town, YSR District.
….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, M/s Hari Priya Agencies,
Dealer for H.P. Gas, D.No. 4-8-12A, Byepass Road,
Pulivendula – 516390, Kadapa District.
2. The Regional Manager, HPCL, LPG Battling Unit,
Anantapur Region, Thadicherla Village, Vadiampeta Post,
Anantapur district.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Coordinating Officer, Divisional Office – 17, 1s floor, 226,
Canada Building, DRDN Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ………Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 24-11-2016 in the presence of Sri V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for O.P.2 and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for O.P.3 and O.P.1 called absent and set exparte on 2-5-2016 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- the Complainant is the permanent resident of Pulivendula town in bearing D.No. 4-4-303, wherein he has setup his family in the said house which belonged to his father in law by name K. Busireddy. He is the consumer of H.P. Gas at Pulivendula with consumer No. 611740. While so, on 23-4-2015 at 4.00 a.m the gas cylinder in the house of the Complainant was burst and blasted due to which his house and the house hold articles like, television, refrigerator, dining set, ceiling fan, rice cooker, gas stove, washing machine and show cases were badly damaged. On intimation fire services department officials arrived and after due enquiry the Station fire officer, pulivendula has issued a certificate with the remarks that the house and house hold articles are damaged in the accident. The father – in – law of the Complainant namely K. Busireddy lodged a complaint with Pulivendula urban police on the same day at 6.00 a.m The asst. sub-inspector, Pulivendual urban police visited the house of the Complainant and conducted panchanama in the presence of elders. It was conducted that fire incident happened accidentally due to burst of gas cylinder.
3. It is further submitted that the Complainant has handed over the damaged cylinder to the R1 on 23-4-2015 and the R1 issued a certificate in token of receiving the damaged cylinder and re- issue of new cylinder in the place of damaged cylinder. The R1 has received the blasted cylinder and regulator without any objection and reissued with new one. After the said incident staff of Respondent inspected the house of the Complainant. After the inspection of investigators valuators, the Complainant made a claim for compensation of Rs. 9,80,000/- for the loss sustained by him due to burst of cylinder which is exclusive property of R1 and R2. In fact as per the surveyor’s report the Complainant sustained material loss to the tune of Rs. 2,15,000/- and building loss to the tune of Rs. 7,65,000/- in total sustained loss of Rs. 9,80,000/-.
4. It is further submitted that from the date of accident and after completion of all formalities the Complainant has been demanding the R1 and R2 to pay compensation of Rs. 9,80,000/- as per the estimation given by the approved value about the loss sustained by him on account of the damage to the house and the house hold articles due to burst of gas cylinder due to burst of cylinder. But, so far the R1 and R2 did not chose to pay the compensation amount to the Complainant as claimed by him. They even failed to give any explanation for not settling his claim. There by the R1 and R2 caused mental agony and physical strain to the Complainant. Having vexed with the negligent attitude R1 and R2 the Complainant issued a legal notice dt. 28-12-2015 calling upon to pay compensation about of Rs. 9,80,000/- as estimated by the licensed valuator. The R2 failed to give any reply. The R2 issued a reply legal notice dt. 19-1-2016 with all false and untenable allegations. Through the reply notice dt. 19-1-2016 the R2 informed that the claim of the Complainant was rejected on the ground that he was issued plastic tube which is not as per norms. The basis for rejecting the claim of the Complainant is untenable and illegal in the eye of law. Basing on the flimsy ground the R2 rejected the claim of the Complainant to have unlawful gain and to evade compensation amount. The services of the Respondents are deficient in nature. The R2 has insured with R3. The R3 will indemnify for loss sustained by or payable the R2. Under these circumstances, all the Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant. Hence, this complaint.
5. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to allow the complaint and pass orders in favour of the Complainant directing the Respondents jointly and severally (a) to pay Rs. 9,80,000/- as compensation towards material and building loss together with 24% interest p.a. from the date of incident i.e. 23-4-2015 till the date of realization (b) to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for physical strain and mental and (c) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards the case of Complainant.
6. R1 remained exparte on 2-5-2016.
7. R2 filed counter that the Complainant is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the compliant which are not expressly and specifically admitted herein by this Opposite party.
8. It is submitted that M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., is a Govt. of India enterprise and it comes under the direct administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India having its Regd. Office at 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai and divided into various zones and zonal and regional offices all over the country. The R1 is having its LPG Regional Office at Ananthapur. The Respondent corporation deals with refining and marketing of essential commodities of petroleum products like motor spirit (MS), High Speed diesel (HSD) Lube Oils and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the country through its wide network of distributors. The Complainant was provided with LPG connection to the residence of D.No. 4-4-303 of Pulivendula town. However, the Complainant was required to follow safe practices while using the LPG connection. The R1 is the dealer of R2 at Pulivendula.
9. It is submitted that on 23-4-2015 the Complainant appro9ached R1 along with damaged cylinder and made a complaint that there was burst of cylinder and on account of the same fire broke out and there was damage to house. The R1 received the damaged cylinder and issued a new cylinder. The Complainant brought the incident to the notice of this Respondent and this Respondent also received intimation from the R1 also, as per the laid down policy and procedure this Respondent enquired into the said accident. The fire accident occurred not due to any defect in the equipment’s proved by this Respondent Corporation. The enquiry by this Respondent shows that the Complainant received cylinder on 16-3-2015 and the Complainant’s family started to use the subject cylinder on 22-4-2015 and the accident took place on 23-4-2015 at early morning hours. The fact that there was no accident between 16-3-2015 and 22-4-2015 itself shows that the cylinder was free of defect and there is no fault in the equipment supplied by this Respondent. The fire accident took place solely due to negligent handling of the LPG installation by the Complainant.
10. The cylinder was exploded as it was exposed to direct heat from outside which clearly visible from the image is enclosed to the Complaint. The enquiry by this Respondent shows that at the time of the accident, the Complainant was using a plastic pipe to connect the LPG cylinder with stove. The use of plastic pipe is an unsafe practice as the plastic pipe is susceptible to easy damage due to regular use. Instead, the Complainant should have used the surekhsa hose suggested by the Respondent Corporation. It is submitted that the use of plastic pipe coupled with the negligent handling of gas cylinder could have resulted in leak of LPG gas and the fire accident. The cylinder exploded as it was exposed to direct heat generated by the fire and not due to any defect in its manufacturing. The cylinder supplied by this Respondent was free from defects and of merchantable quality.
11. This Respondent herein has state of art facilities for filling LPG cylinders. The mechanism of refilling of the cylinder is designed in such a way, that the moment any cylinder is found to be having a defective valve the filing machine, itself discards the same out of the filing line and the same is kept aside either for undertaking repairs to the valve or totally discarded as being not fit for further usage. Moreover, all filling cylinders are also checked for leakages before dispatching them to distributors. In any event to protect the interest and safety of the Complainant the R1 was advised to replace the Complainant’s cylinder and regulator free of cost. It does not mean that there was any fault in the cylinder and regular supplied by the R1. The claim of the Complainant was processed to the R3, insurance company. As per information received by this Respondent R3 rejected the claim of the Complainant for using plastic tube which is not in accordance with the norms. Thus there is no negligence on the part of the R2 so that the R2 cannot be sued. There is no deficiency in the service on the part of this Respondent.
12. It is submitted that the R2 has taken insurance coverage called as “Public Liability Policy” which will be provided to the consumers of LPG to avoid loss of property and person in case of any contingency. Accordingly in terms of the said insurance policy taken by this Respondent herein with M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., bearing policy No. 021700/46/14/37/00000041 for the period covering 2-5-2014 to midnight of 1-5-2015. R3 may be directed to indemnify the R2 and pay such compensation to the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant is highly exaggerated and it is not supported by any legal evidence. There is no cause of action against this Respondent to claim the amount. The allegations in the complaint which are contrary to the case of this Respondent are false, denied and devoid of substance invented for the purpose of this false claim. Therefore, prayed Hon’ble forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint of the Complainant with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
13. Written version of R3 filed that the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations mentioned in the Complainant and this Respondent denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint except those are specifically admitted herein.
14. As per contents of counter field by R2, this Respondent submits that it has issued Trader’s policy – Public utility policy bearing No. 021700/46/14/37/00000041 for the period covering 2-5-2014 to midnight of 1-5-2015 and received claim of the Complainant from them. The said claim was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant has used plastic tube which is not in accordance with the norms. As there are violations in maintenance of cylinder this Respondent is not liable to indemnify the R2 party. After thorough investigation only the claim of the Complainant was rejected. As such there is no deficiency in the service on the part of this Respondent.
15. The Complainant is put to strict proof that he sustained loss as mentioned in his complaint. In any event the claim of the Complainant is highly exaggerated and it is not supported by any legal evidence. There is no cause of action for filing present complaint against this Respondent and prayed that the forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this Respondent in the interest of justice.
16. Additional written version filed by R3 that the Public liability policy issued in favour of three oil and Petroleum Corporations i.e. 1) M/s Inidan Oil Corporation Ltd., 2) Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd., and 3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., under the policy No. 021700/46/14/37/00000041 commences from 2-5-2014 to 1-5-2015 indemnifying the insured and it only applies to claims arising out of accident occurring in the circumstances specified in the schedule arising in connection with or arising out of gas cylinder supplied by the insured during the period of insurance except liability arising in respect of accidents in the insured’s premises.
17. Whileso, this Respondent has received claim from the R2 in which the claim of the Complainant was forwarded along with claim from this Respondent received accident report, requisition letter of the Complainant along with surveyors report. After receipt of claim form, this Respondent appointed a surveyor by name Cunningham Lindsey International insurance surveyors and loss assessors Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for investigation. As per accident report submitted R2 and as per the investigation report the Complainant had used a rubber tube and not the Suraksha hose. Due to lose contact of plastic pipe with regulator while changing of cylinder installation it might have occurred and ignited from the source of regular switch. As the accident was occurred due to use of standard equipment i.e. Surakasha Hose, the claim fell under exclusion No. 3 which reads as “arising out of deliberate, willful or international non – compliance of any statutory provision and non – fulfillment of maintenance or proper quality control” and hence claim is not payable. This fact was informed by this Respondent to the R2. This Respondent is not liable to indemnify the insurance i.e. R2 and present complaint has to be dismissed agains this Respondent in the interest of justice.
18. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
19. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A10 were marked and on behalf of R3 Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.
20. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As per complaint the Complainant nowhere proved that due to defective cylinder was burst only and due to that burst only he has loss towards damages of other articles. In the complaint that the Complainant nowhere mentioned how there was defect in the cylinder, when the Complainant had taken delivery of the cylinder in to his house on 16-3-2015 and the accident occurred on 23-4-2015. If there was defect in cylinder in between 16-3-2015 and 23-4-2015 there is no leakage of gas or something else, dangerous was found by the Complainant in his house. There is no record evidence to prove that there was defect in the LPG cylinder which was supplied by the Respondents 1 & 2 to the Complainant. The documents filed by the Complainant Exs. A1 to A10 did not prove that there is defect in LPG cylinder. So there is no deficiency of service, defect or negligence on the part of the Respondent 1 to 3 at the same time the Complainant is not eligible for any compensation as prayed by him.
21. Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29th November 2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex: A1 Fire Service Attendance certificate dated 25-4-2015 under R.C. No.45/PVL/2015 issued by Fire Station, Pulivendula.
Ex: A2 Certificate along with Panchanama issued by the Assistant Sub inspector
of Police, Pulivendula Urban P.S., Dt. 23-4-2015.
Ex: A3 Receipt of blasted/damaged cylinder issued by the R1 dt. 23-4-2015.
Ex: A4 Estimation of damages issued by licensed Surveyor and planner.
Ex: A5 Legal notice dt. 28-12-2015 issued by the complaint to R1 and No.2.
Ex: A6 Postal Receipts 2 in number.
Ex: A7 Acknowledgement Cards 2 in number.
Ex: A8 Repudiation Cards 2 in number.
Ex: A9 Photographs 27 in number showing the damage.
Ex: A10 Sakshi daily paper cutting dt. 24-4-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the R2. -
Ex. B1 P/c of Public Liability policy No. 021700/46/14/37/00000041 issued by the United India insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the R3. -
Ex. B2 P/c of Public Liability policy No. 021700/46/14/37/00000041 issued by the United India insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
Ex. B3 P/c of claim form along with accident report, requisition letter of the Complainant along with surveyor’s report.
Ex. B4 inspection summary report dt. 30-7-2015 issued by Cunningham Lindsey International Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for O.P.2.
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for O.P.3
- The Proprietor, M/s Hari Priya Agencies, Dealer for H.P. Gas, D.No. 4-8-12A, Byepass Road, Pulivendula, Kadapa Dist
B.V.P
