IMPORTANT POINT
Fire accident in residential house of complainant due to leakage in gas cylinder—Without proving fact of loss, impugned judgment and order of District Commission concerned for its payment is not proper and appropriate.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 09 of 2011 styled as Mohd. Aziz vs. M/s Parwat Gas Agency and Another, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party No.1 - M/s Parwat Gas Agency, Managing Director, Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam, Nainital to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment and order. It was further ordered that the opposite party No. 1 shall pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges. The said complaint was dismissed against the opposite party No 2.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the resident of Rajmahal Compound, Mallital, Nainital. The complainant took cooking gas cylinder from the opposite party No. 1 vide Customer Serial No. 18741, S.B. Serial No. 3733855 dated 21.05.1996, therefore, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 is the insurer of the opposite party No.1. On dated 5.11.2009, fire took place in the residential house of the complainant due to leakage in the gas cylinder while replacing it. In this fire incident, the house hold items such as color television, fridge, washing machine, almira, dressing table, V.C.D., Quilt-Mattresses, Briefcase, Books alongwith other four items were found burnt. Apart from it, Rs.40,000/- cash was also burnt in this incident. An information regarding this occurrence was immediately given to the Fire Brigade and Emergency Service Department through telephone. After many efforts, the fire was controlled by the Fire Brigade, but till then the whole items of the house were found burnt of worth Rs.Five Lacs. The complainant requested to the Tehsildaar, Nainital and opposite party No. 1 to pay the compensation, but no action was taken. The opposite party No. 1 was insured by the opposite party No. 2 and the insurance policy was also valid from 01.05.2009 to 30.04.2010 vide policy No.46/802/48/09/200000/33. A letter for paying compensation to the complainant was also repudiated by the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant was construed to file the complaint before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement, the opposite party No. 1 has stated that the complainant is neither the resident of the house at Rajmahal Compound, Mallital, Nainital, nor he is the customer of the opposite party No. 1 at the time of occurrence dated 05.11.2009. The gas connection customer receipt Serial No. 18741 dated 19.01.2010 was issued after the above occurrence wherein the address is shown as Durfan Lodge, Mallital, Nainital and there was also cutting for changing the address as Rajmahal Compound, Mallital, Nainital, therefore, the complainant has filed a wrong and concocted complaint for getting compensation illegally from the answering opposite party. It is further stated that the true fact of the case is as such that a person Mohd. Parvez S/o Late Mohd. Shareef also filed a complaint No. 92 of 2010 for getting compensation giving his address as Rajmahal Compound, Mallital, Nainital in which he has mentioned that he was the customer of the answering opposite party and fire incident due to leakage of gas happened on dated 05.11.2009. The answering opposite party has neither given any gas connection to the Mohd. Parvez in the address of Rajmahal Compound, nor any complaint regarding gas leakage or the fire incident was lodged in the office of the answering opposite party from 05.11.2009 to 09.04.2010 after such pleading and contention, the above consumer complaint was dismissed as not pressed on behalf of Mohd.