ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
This appeal filed by the Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity) is directed against an order dated 25/04/2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli dismissing Consumer Complaint No.2276 of 2009.
[2] Tragic facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:-
Complainants are the husband and children of one Smt. Shakuntala. All of them were residing in their house at Miraj. Respondent/Opponent No.2 had provided a gas connection as an agent of Respondent/Opponent No.1. On 24/02/2008, it was alleged that there was leakage of gas in the house when Smt. Shakuntala was trying to ignite gas-stove for heating water and the gas which had leaked flared up. Smt. Shakuntala sustained 67% burns. There was a blast of gas-cylinder which led to damage to the house. Smt. Shakuntala succumbed to her injuries on 29/03/2008, after a sum of Rs.2,83,937/- was spent on her treatment. Complainants Nos.2 and 3 were also were also injured and were also treated at the cost of Rs.30,504/- and Rs.13,200/-, respectively. Damage to the house was quantified at Rs.1,11,239/-. Complainants claimed all these amounts from the Respondents/Opponents. However, the Respondents/Opponents did not comply. Hence, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint.
[3] Respondents/Opponents filed their written versions stating that there was no defect in the gas-cylinder. It was alleged that the Complainants’ family was using gas-cylinder defying safety regulations. It was found that an unauthorized ‘T’ point connected the gas-cylinder to two gas-stoves. Rubber pipes which connected the gas-stoves were not the ones which were approved by the Respondents/Opponents. Since the mishap occurred on account of lapses on the part of the Complainants’ family, the Respondents/Opponents denied their liability.
[4] Respondent/Opponent No.3 – National Insurance Company Ltd., also stated that since the gas-connection was operated in an unauthorized manner, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation.
[5] After considering rival contentions in the light of evidence tendered, the District Forum came to pass the impugned order holding that there was no evidence to show that the gas-cylinder or the regulator was defective. District Forum observed that the evidence of Smt. Maya Gursale, which was tendered by the Respondents/Opponents, had not been countered by the Complainants. The Forum also observed that had the gas-cylinder or regulator been defective there could have been leakage from the date the gas-cylinder was installed. The Forum found that two gas-stoves which had been connected to the gas-cylinder via rubber tubing and ‘T’ pipe were at two levels, one on the kitchen platform and the other on the floor. The Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the Complainants are before us.
[6] We have heard Adv. R. H. Patil on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants, Adv. A. V. Vishwanathan for the Respondent No.1, Adv. Smt. Ujwala Sawant for the Respondent No.2 and Adv. Smt. Sneha S. Dwivedi for the Respondent No.3. With the help of learned counsel, we have also gone through the material placed on record.
[7] ‘Panchanama’ drawn by the police itself, fortifies the situation as observed by the District Forum. There is nothing on record to show that the mishap occurred on account of any defect in the gas-cylinder or regulator. On the other hand, it appears that the accident occurred because of Complainants connecting gas-cylinder to two different gas-stoves placed at two different places by a rubber-tubing which was not approved. Contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants/Complainants that the ‘Panchanama’ drawn-up by police should not be relied upon as it was prepared in absence of the Complainants cannot be accepted. There would be no reason for the police to draw-up a ‘Panchanama’ de-hors the facts as observed on the spot.
[8] In view of this, we find that the conclusions drawn by the District Forum are correct. Thus, we find no substance in the present appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 30th September, 2014
