M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 28.02.2020 passed in C.C.No.17/2018 by District Commission, Bhind)

 

SHYAMSUNDER ALIAS GULLE SHARMA,

S/O SHRI JAGDEEP PRASAD,

R/O BIJASEN ROAD, PARASHAR KA BAGH,

WARD NO.1, LAHAAR, TEHSIL-LAHAAR,

DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. PROPRIETOR, SHIVAM GAS AGENCY,

    NEAR NEW BUS STAND, LAHAAR,

    TEHSIL-LAHAAR, DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)

 

2. PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER,

    JABALPUR MPGR ORIGINAL OFFICE (HPCL)

    PLOT NO.1-2, PHASE-2 MANERI INDUSTRIAL AREA,

    THESIL, RESIDENCE-MANDLA                                                                           …. RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                   

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri M. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 25.07.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.17/2018 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/appellant has been dismissed, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal.

 

-2-

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant had obtained a LPG connection number 603219 from the opposite party no.1. On 16.05.2017 refill was asked by the complainant and the opposite party no.1’s hawker fixed the gas cylinder after fixing the regulator. It is alleged by the complainant that at about 5PM when he lighted the gas stove to prepare tea, fire broke out in the cylinder, the complainant and his family members came out of the house. The gas cylinder got burst and damaged the roof, walls of the house. Valuable household articles such as refrigerator, coolers, LED TV got damaged. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Immediate intimation was given to the opposite party no.1, SDO police Lahaar and opposite party no.2 was also informed. The employees of the opposite party no.1 came and took away the damaged cylinder and asked the complainant to proceed with the HPCL company. It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the opposite parties did not compensate him. He therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 –dealer resisted the complaint stating that gas cylinders coming from the company are provided to the customers. The complainant never asked to check all the equipment as per standard procedure of the gas company, he did not get change the regulator on time as also did not make any complaint. The

-3-

company is liable for the damages caused due to bursting of cylinder. No employee of the opposite party no.1 took the damaged cylinder. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2 submitted that the cylinders are prepared as per ISI mark approved by the government and valve fixed on the cylinders are properly tested thereafter the cylinders are provided to the distributors. The complainant did not inform the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that after taking LPG connection, the consumers are directed to follow safety measures and precautions such as the consumer is expected to check before lighting the gas, cylinder, the regulator, rubber tube etc that there is any leakage. There is possibility that the complainant not properly used the regulator and the gas leakage was from the regulator. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document