First Appeal No. 158 of 2013. Case: Vineet Gas and Ors. Vs Ramesh Thakur and Ors., [Alongwith First Appeal No. 166 of 2013]. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 158 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Anil Tomer, Advocate in FA No. 158/2013 and Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate in FA No. 166/2013 and For Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in FA No. 158/2013, Mr. Anil Tomer, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in FA No. 166/2013 and Mr. Himanshu Panwar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in FA... |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. (President), Chander Shekhar Sharma and Prem Chauhan, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | I (2014) CPJ 263 (HP) |
| Judgement Date | September 24, 2013 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, J. (President)
-
These two appeals are being disposed of by a common order, as in both of them, the same order, i.e. order dated 23.4.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, has been assailed. Appeals have been filed by two of the three opposite parties against respondent-complainant Ramesh Thakur, had filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admitted facts are that complainant Ramesh Thakur had been released an LPG connection by M/s. Vineet Gas Agency, appellant in F.A. No. 158 of 2013. Gas used to be supplied in cylinders. Cylinders used to be got filled by the Indian Oil Corporation and made available to M/s. Vineet Gas Agency, the aforesaid appellant and hereinafter referred to as opposite party No. 1, for sale/supply to the customers attached with his agency. The Indian Oil Corporation, which was impleaded as opposite party No. 3 in the complaint, had purchased an insurance policy from United India Insurance Company, impleaded as opposite party No. 2 and appellant in F.A. No. 166 of 2013. Policy, inter alia, provided for indemnification of customers/gas connection holders in the event of their suffering any damage or loss arising out of any accident caused by use/handling of LPG cylinders.
-
Respondent/complainant Ramesh Thakur had been supplied a gas cylinder on 24.12.2008. On 21.1.2009, early in the morning, his wife changed the aforesaid cylinder with the old one, as gas in the old cylinder had run out. When she tried to ignite the stove, the pipe caught fire, leading to bursting of cylinder. Wife of the complainant sustained some injuries. Kitchen and all the adjoining rooms, forming residence of the complainant and his brother were badly damaged. Household goods were also damaged. Loss to the tune of Rs. 4.00-5.00 lacs had allegedly been sustained. Report was lodged with the police immediately. Intimation of accident was given to opposite party No. 1, i.e. Vineet Gas Agency also. Complainant was not indemnified by any of the three opposite parties and, therefore, he filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4.50 lacs as compensation, breakup of which, as per complaint is as follows:
(i) Rs. 2.00 lacs, on account of damage to the structure of the house;
(ii) Rs. 2.00 lacs for the loss of household goods; and Rs. 50,000 on account of injury to the wife of the complainant and shock to all the members of the house.
-
Separate replies were filed on behalf of the opposite parties. M/s. Vineet Gas Agency took the plea that accident had taken place because of pipe connecting the cylinder with stove was defective and the complainant did not change that pipe, despite having been informed at the time of inspection, carried out on 31.12.2008 that pipe was defective and was not of ISI mark. It was also stated that alleged damage was highly exaggerated.
-
Opposite party No. 2, i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, who is appellant in F.A. No. 166 of 2013, took the plea that as per terms and conditions of the policy, intimation of accident was required to be given to it within 14 days, but no such intimation had been given, either by the insured, i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation, opposite party No. 3, or the complainant or the distributor, i.e. M/s. Vineet Gas Agency and hence, there was a breach of condition of policy.
-
Opposite party No. 3 besides taking the plea that cause of accident was the defective pipe connecting the stove with LPG cylinder, pleaded that relationship between it and opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Vineet Gas Agency was on principal to principal basis and Clause-17 of the Distributorship Agreement clearly provided that relationship of distributor with his customers was to be of a principal and not of its agent or distributor.
-
Learned District Forum...
To continue reading
Request your trial