STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2984/2024 null T KAMALAMMA PRESENT ADDRESS - W/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.3592/2, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, TILKNAGAR, MYSURU CITY -

570021NCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE PETROLEUM CO. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - KALABYRESHWARA H.P. GAS AGENCY, RING ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, 4TH STAGE MYSURU - 570017NCDRC,KARNATAKA.

THE MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MR.

AMITH SINGH, AREA SALES MANAGER, HPCL, MYSURU - 570 001.NCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

DATED: 17.01.2025

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Complainant in CC/325/2021 before Mysuru District Commission filed this appeal against the dismissal order made by the District Commission. The Complainant submits that on 16.10.2016 at about 9:30pm house of his neighbour one Mr.S.Kumar caught fire due to explosion of the gas cylinder. The house of the complainant was damaged. The complainant has ground floor measuring 1900 x 404 sq.ft., and first floor measuring 17500 x 404 sq.ft. The entire house was damaged to the extent of Rs.14,74,600/-. The house hold articles were also damaged for worth of Rs.6,00,000/-. Immediately, police complaint was lodged and FIR was filed vide No.0157/2016 U/s 337 of IPC. The Respondent No.1 is the distributor of the gas cylinder and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company which covers the third party liability. Mr.S.Kumar who was the neighbour of this complainant suffered damages and also after the incident he claimed for compensation by virtue of the policy. The Respondent No.2 being Insurance Company had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,15,004/- and paid to Mr.S.Kumar. Being not satisfied with the same, said Kumar returned the same to distributor. The Insurance Company has not considered the claim made by this complainant. Under the Public Liability this respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the damages. Hence they filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for a compensation to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of

18% p.a.

2. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding the complaint is barred by time and also there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The policy covers the Public Liability due to the explosion of the gas cylinder of the neighbour’s house and home of the complainant was damaged. Hence both respondents are responsible for payment of compensation. But the District Commission failed to appreciate the said fact and dismissed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The respondents are liable to pay compensation for the damages. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint directing the respondents to pay the compensation as claimed in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Heard on admission.

4. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal. We noticed that on 06.10.2016 at about 9:30pm gas cylinder explosion was occurred in the house of Mr.S.Kumar who is the neighbour of the complainant. Due to which the house of the complainant was also damaged. The complainant by virtue of the Public Liability under the policy has filed a complaint for compensation. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence of both complainant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 had dismissed the complaint holding there is no any deficiency in service on the part of respondents and also hold that complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.

5. We noticed complainant is the neighbour