STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM M.P.

First Appeal No. FA/14/1048 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)

ATUL GAS AGENCY Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Tiwari PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Dr. Srikant Pandey MEMBER HON'BLE MR. D. K. Shrivastava MEMBER PRESENT:

Dated : 04 Oct 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 16.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.70/2013 by District Commission, Vidisha)

1. ATUL GAS AGENCY, THROUGH PROPRIETOR ATUL SHAH, R/O KIRI MOHALLA, VIDISHA (M.P.)

2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM, THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE, REGIONAL MANAGER, NEAR MANGLIA STATION, INDORE (M.P.) …

APPELLANT.

Versus

1. NIRANJAN SINGH, SHRI MISHRI LAL PANTHI, R/O WARD NO.19, VIDISHA (M.P.)

2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH-CIVIL LINE, VIDISHA.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH-MOD BHAWAN, RAJEEV NAGAR, VIDISHA (M.P.) ….

RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

None for the respondent no.1.

Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

-2-

O R D E R

(Passed On 04.10.2023)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K.

Tiwari, Presiding Member:

This appeal by the opposite party no.1 and 2-the dealer and manufacturer of HP LPG is directed against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 70/2013 whereby the District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’)

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party no.1-Atul Gas Agency, the dealer of LPG in Vidisha and his consumer number is 709228. It is submitted that on 13.10.2012 he had obtained a gas cylinder from the opposite party no.1/appellant no.1. On the same day at about 8:00 pm when he was cooking food, the cylinder caught fire and before extinguishing, fire broke out in his house and the household articles such colour TV, refrigerator, computer, DVD player and Rs.8,000/- in cash got damaged in fire. It is alleged that he approached the opposite party no.1-distributor for inspecting the premises and for replacement of cylinder but the opposite party no.1 neither inspected the premises nor replaced the cylinder. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in -3-

service on part of the opposite parties approached the District Commission, seeking relief to the extent of Rs.1,85,000/-.

3. The opposite party no.1/appellant no.1 Atul Gas Agency denying the other allegations made in the complaint admitted that the complainant had obtained gas connection via no.709228 for Village-seu, Nateran and on 13.10.2012 he had obtained refill on the said connection. It is submitted that the complainant never informed it about said incident nor had made any request for replacement of cylinder. It is further submitted that if the cylinder got burst, the complainant must have approached the dealer for replacement but he is continuously using the cylinder, this shows that the cylinder was not defective. No reply has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2-

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).

4. The opposite party no.3- the New India Assurance Company Limited denied the allegations made in the complaint and has stated that the complainant never made any complaint to the insurance company. The complainant should take care before using the cylinder and if there was any leakage in the cylinder, he ought to have immediately informed the dealer about it. The complainant ought to have informed immediately to the insurance company and therefore the