NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Sawita Rani – Petitioner
versus
M/s. Janta Gas Service and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4867 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 03/09/2012 in Appeal No.1008/2012 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 1.3.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
“Re-appreciation and re-assessment of evidences under revisional jurisdiction not permissible.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – LPG – Defective Cylinder – Loss by fire – Claim for – Allegedly, house of complainant caught fire due to bursting of gas cylinders – Rs. 2,56,805 for loss of building, Rs. 5,86,500 for loss of house hold articles etc. claimed by complaint – District Forum dismissed the complaint – Appeal against also dismissed by State Commission – Hence this revision – Even if there was leakage in the gas cylinder, there must be some external source of ignition for fire to accur – Complainant failed to prove that leakage was caused due to defect in the cylinder – District Forum rightly had observed that it might be possible fire occurred in the house due to some other reason and because of fire, cylinder burns – Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that cylinder was defective and service of opposite parties was deficient – Interference with concurrent findings of courts below declined.

Held: Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have carefully gone through the record. Brief facts of that case are that the Complainant is a consumer of Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1 vide LPG Gas connection/consumer No. 18133 and SV No. 1612928 dated 17.01.2000. Earlier the said connection was purchased from Shalini Gas Agency and thereafter it was transferred to the agency of Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Janta Gas Agency. The Complainant was having two cylinders on the said connection. Opposite Party No. 1 is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 is the insurer of products of Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. On 20.08.2010 the Complainant booked Indane gas cylinder through Respondent No. 1, vide Sr. No. 6254, and thereafter booked a second cylinder on 20.09.2010, vide Sr. No. 10513. On 30.10.2010 at about 6:30 P.M. when the Complainant as well as her family members were not present at their residence, as they had gone to their neighbour’s house, the Complainant heard a loud noise from her house. On hearing the loud noise, the Complainant rushed towards her house and she saw that her house had caught fire due to bursting of the Gas cylinder. As per the Complainant, two cylinders burst one after the other. Immediately thereafter, the Fire Brigade and the Police arrived at the site of the incident. On 02.11.2010, the Complainant move an application alongwith a copy of DDR, photocopy of Newspaper, Fire Brigade Report and list of articles before Respondent No. 1 for compensation. Thereafter, a Surveyor was appointed by Respondent No.1, who demanded certain documents from the Complainant. The Complainant duly provided the requisite documents to the office of the Surveyor. On 03.02.2011, however, Respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the Complainant. The State Commission had erred in not examining the Fire Brigade Report which pointed out that there was leakage in the LPG cylinder and in observing that “it did not find anything established the occurrence of fire was due to cylinder burst.” The State Commission while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the basis of doubts and was liable to be set aside.

The Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 contended that the Complaint was not maintainable and that the Complainant had no locus standi to file and maintain the Complaint. It was also contended that the Complaint did not disclose any cause of action. Respondent No. 1 had taken an insurance policy covering any liability qua public for the period 08.12.2009 to 07.12.2010 from Oriental Insurance Company, i.e. Respondent No. 3, vide cover note No.238732/734355/734356/734357 dated 02.12.2009 and Opposite Party No. 2 had also taken Insurance Cover from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for indemnifying the Complainant in respect of any claims awarded to the third party in respect of any liability and therefore, the Complainant was not entitled to claim any compensation from Respondent No. 1. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that due to the aforementioned Insurance Policies, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from Respondent No. 2. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 also contended that Complaint was not maintainable, as the Complainant had no locus standi to file the Complaint and that the Complaint did not disclose a genuine cause of action.

The main contention of Counsel for Respondent No. 3 was that under the Insurance policy terms and conditions liability is covered only when cylinders from the insured’s premises are in course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried in the premises of the insured customers or if the incident happens at the time of installation of gas cylinder. It was also contended by Counsel for Respondent No. 3 that no claim was lodged by the Complainant with Respondent No. 3 and only the insured, i.e. Respondent No. 1 had lodged a claim with Respondent No. 3.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 contended that the Complaint was not maintainable and that the Complainant had no locus standi to file the Complaint. They also contended that the Complaint does not disclose any cause of action. No grounds, however, had been taken to support the said contentions. Respondent No. 2 is the company that manufactures Gas Cylinders and Respondent No.1 is a Gas Agency which undertakes distribution of the Gas Cylinders manufactured by Respondent No. 2. Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines the term “Service”, includes within its ambit “supply of electrical or other energy”. Goods and services provided by Gas Companies and their distributors certainly fall within the scope of “Service” as contemplated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore, the Complainant in the present case had availed the services of Respondent No. 1 and 2 for personal consumption and not for any commercial purpose. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention that the Complainant had no locus standi to file the Complaint or that the Complaint is not maintainable. I also do not find merit in the contention that the Complaint did not disclose any cause of action. The cause of action in the present case clearly arose on the day of incident, when Gas Cylinders burst, in which they deal.

Important issue involved in the matter is whether the Gas cylinder was defective and had leaked, which caused the fire. The District Forum had also observed that even if there was leakage in the gas cylinder, there must be some external source of ignition for fire to occur. The Complainant has not provided any evidence to substantiate her claim that the leakage was caused due to defect in the cylinder. The only document submitted by Complainant in support of her contention was the Surveyor’s Report, which merely stated that “the insured has informed that due to burst of LPG cylinder in the consumer premises, fire took place as confirmed by Fire Brigade report & DDR also”. The Surveyor’s Report, however, does not disclose the possible reason for bursting of Gas Cylinder and whether there was any defect in the cylinder. The Fire Brigade Report also merely stated the “Supposed Cause of Fire” as “Leakage of gas cylinder”. It, however, does not attribute the leakage due to any defect in the gas cylinders. There is nothing in the Surveyor’s Report, the Police Report or the Fire Brigade Report to show that there was a defect in the Gas Cylinders delivered to the Complainant. In the absence of strict proof that there was a defect in the Gas Cylinders, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly observed that “It might be possible fire occurred in the house due to some other reason and because of fire cylinder burst and exaggerated the fire. Complainant totally failed to discharge her onus by any cogent believable evidence to establish that cylinder was defective and service of opposite parties deficient.” The State Commission also dismissed the Appeal filed by the Complainant/Petitioner.

Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269.

Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286. I see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 7 to 14)

Result: Petition Dismissed.