Back
M.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member and Dr. Srikant Pandey, Member
Keshav Rao and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Sanchalak, Shivalaya Sona and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.1689 of 2013
(Arising out of order dated 08.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.46/2010 by District Commission, Betul)
Decided on 22.11.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.1: Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.2: Shri Atul Dhariwal, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.3: Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal, learned counsel
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Terms and Conditions - The terms and conditions given in ‘C-1’ are to be followed by every consumer.
(2) Evidence Act - It is well settled principle that the complainant has to prove the pleadings made in the complaint then onus shifts to opposite parties for rebuttal, however, strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable.
Headnote:
A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – LPG Connection – Keeping two cylinders – Violation of Policy Terms and Conditions ‘C-1’ - The opposite party no.1 in paragraph 4 of its reply had clearly stated that the complainant was provided gas cylinder on 25.01.2009 i.e. more one month before the date of incident 01.03.2009. It was not explained by them that why they waited for one month to connect the cylinder with the stove. From the SV it is clear that they have only one cylinder and therefore it cannot be said that they are having two gas cylinders. If they had two cylinders, it can be presumed that they used the cylinders one by one and for that purpose they kept one cylinder in spare. This clearly goes to show that they must have arranged another cylinder by other means which violates the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions given in ‘C-1’ are to be followed by every consumer. Therefore, it can safely be said that while changing the unauthorized cylinder, they must have committed some mistake which resulted broking of fire. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties – Thus, Appeal is dismissed. [Paras 9 to 12].
B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Practise and Procedure – ‘Pleadings” – “Rules of Evidence” – Not applicable - The complainants have filed various documents including medical bills. The opposite parties have also filed documents. It is well settled principle that the complainant has to prove the pleadings made in the complaint then onus shifts to opposite parties for rebuttal, however, strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable - It is well settled principle that the complainant has to prove the pleadings made in the complaint then onus shifts to opposite parties for rebuttal, however, strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable. [Para 9]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member—This appeal by the complainants is directed against the order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Betul (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 46/2010 whereby the complaint filed by them has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant no.2 had obtained a LPG connection no. 610772 from the opposite party no.1. On 01.03.2009 at 8 PM when the plastic cap from the LPG cylinder was removed for installation, it was found that the gas leaked out as there was no safety nozzle. The complainant no.1 tried to stop the flow of gas by his hand but he could not control the same and by that time gas sprayed and fire broke out in the whole. People came and extinguished the fire. It is alleged that the complainant no.1 got scorched by the fire in the said incident. He was treated in District Hospital, Betul. The police also prepared the panchnama. He remained admitted in Mure Hospital Nagpur for treatment from 02.03.2009 to 18.04.2009, thereafter also he was treated in District Hospital, Betul. It is alleged that incident occurred due to defective LPG cylinder provided by the opposite party no.1 therefore the opposite party no.1 and 2 are liable. Since opposite party no.3 is an insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is also liable to pay the damages. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking compensation of Rs.11,90,000/-.
3. The opposite party no.1-dealer though admitted that though it had provided LPG connection to the complainant no.2 but denied the other facts stating that the incident occurred due to negligence of the complainants for which the opposite party no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. The opposite party no.3-insurance company covered the opposite party no.1-dealer under the insurance package policy and if the complaint is allowed, the opposite party no.3-insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
4. The opposite party no.2-HPCL in its reply has submitted that contract regarding gas connection was between the complainant no.1 and the opposite party no.1-dealer. Since the opposite party no.2 is not engaged in the contract, the opposite party no.2 is not liable. The opposite party no.2-HPCL had given HP Gas dealership to the opposite party no.1 under an agreement. For the liabilities of opposite party no.1-dealer, the opposite party no.2-HPCL is not responsible. The complaint against opposite party no.2 deserves to be dismissed.
5. The opposite party no.3-insurance company by filing reply to the complaint has submitted that the opposite party no.1 is dealer of HP Gas Company and the opposite party no.3-insurance company insured the opposite party no.1 Shivalaya Sona Gas Agency under the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant no.1 himself opened the seal and connected the gas cylinder to the stove, whereas it is the responsibility of the opposite party no.1 to connect the cylinder to the stove of the consumer but it has not done so. The insurance company covered the risk of building, godown, theft and third party of Shivalaya Sona Gas Agency. If the accident occurred during transportation of gas cylinder, then only a fixed amount was payable. Under the insurance policy after delivering and connecting the gas cylinder with gas stove by an employee of the gas agency, the insurance was not done separately for any third person. The complainants are not their consumers as they have not entered into any contract with the insurance company. The insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the complainants/appellants argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in presuming that before connecting the gas cylinder to the
