M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1144/2013 National Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Manager 71, Sewani Towers M.P. Nagar Bhopal District Bhopal ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Maithli Sharan Address –Chotta Bazar Daroga Gali District Datiya (M.P.)

2. Datiya Gas Service Through Proprietor Address –

Infront of Geeta Nagar Datiya (M.P.)

3. Indian Oil Corporation Through Managing Director Address –

Indian Oil House, G-9 Ali Yawar Jung Road Bandra Mumbai ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

MS. SAMBHAVNA RAJPUT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

MS. SMITA SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPLONDENT NO.2. SHRI R.K. LOKHANDE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

O R D E R

( 9.10.2025 )

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/opposite party No. 3-

National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) is directed against the order dated 21.2.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Datia (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 100/2012, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant-Maithli Sharan (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant, are that he obtained a gas connection of respondent No.3/opposite party No.2-Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Indian Oil Corporation’), from respondent No.2/opposite party No.1-Datiya Gas Service. Datiya Gas Service obtained an insurance policy from the appellant/Insurance Company to cover all types of risks of their customers. On 30.7.2011, when daughter in law of complainant lighted the stove, in the morning about 6 O’clock for making tea, in few seconds the regulator caught fire and the cylinder got burst. As a result the roof of the kitchen got damaged and two walls of kitchen also developed cracks. According to complainant two days before the incident, he had made a complaint to the Gas Agency regarding leakage in the cylinder but the Agency ignored the request. The incident was immediately reported to the Kotwali Police Station and FIR was registered. The police investigated the matter. It is alleged that in the incident the complainant suffered an estimated loss of Rs.2,37,963/-. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The respondent No.1/opposite party No.1-Agency resisted the complainant and in its reply before the District Commisson submitted that from the complaint, it is not clear that when the cylinder in question was purchased by him, when the cylinder started leaking and if it was a case of gas leakage, why no intimation in writing was given to the Gas Agency. It has been further stated that opposite party No.1 is only dealer of opposite party No.2 and they are just distributing the cylinders of opposite party No.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent No.2/opposite party No.2-Indian Oil Corporation, in its reply before the District Commission admitted that the complainant has obtained a gas connection. It has been further stated that the opposite party No.1/Agency has obtained an insurance policy from opposite party No.3/Insurance Company for the period from 1.5.2011 to 30.4.2012 and the incident occurred during the period of insurance cover i.e. 30.7.2011. If there was any fault in the cylinder, the complainant should not have been used it. There is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the Insurance Company has issued ‘LPG Traders Combined Policy’