N. Rajendran vs SR. REGIONAL MANAGER, HPCL

IN this complaint, under Section 17 read with section 12 of the Act, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,49,000/- from the opposite parties.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, who are the manufacturers of L.P.G. Cylinders. OPPOSITE party No. 2 is M/s. M.C.D. Enterprises, distributors to the complainant. OPPOSITE party No. 3 is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited with whom opposite party No. 1 had insured under Multi-Peril L.P. Gas dealer policy. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken gas connection to his house which was being supplied through opposite party No. 2. He was using the gas cylinder since the month of November 1991. He had taken the upstair premises on rent and was residing there.

The complainant being the bachelor was making use of the gas in the cylinder for heating the water for the purposes of testing the silk materials and he was taking his coffee, tiffin, meals, etc., in some hotel.

IT is further the case of the complainant that opposite party No. 2 supplied the cooking gas cylinder to the complainant through its delivery boy on 7.3.91 The complainant used to leave his premises for his work by about 9.00 a.m. every day and used to get back to the premises by about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m.

NEXTLY, it is the case of the complainant that by about 9.00 p.m. on 7.3.91, after finishing official work came back to the premises, opened the door and put on the electric switch. As soon as he put on the electric switch, the fire broke out attributable to the collection of the cooking gas in the premises due to the leakage in the gas cylinder. The complainant suffered certain burn injuries and immediately under panic jumped down from the upstair premises, in consequence of which, he sustained serious injuries to his head and other parts of the body. The complainant was admitted to the hospital for the treatment of the injuries suffered by him. He took treatment for several days.

THE complainant further averred that due to this explosion, fire accident, the textile material kept in the room was burnt and all his belongings also came to be burnt. Even the building premises got damaged and sustained heavy loss.

THE complainant averred that in consequence of which, e lost his employment and incurred heavy expenses for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him. Even the building premises got damaged. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,49,000/- from the opposite parties - he has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- towards loss of employment, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damage to the house of the owner and other neighbouring house and also a sum of Rs. 90.000/- to rebuild the premises and also sought certain amounts for the loss of silk material burnt in the said accident. The complainant, in all, as referred above, sought compensation from the opposite parties in a sum of Rs. 5,49,000/-.

Opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 filed their version. Admitted the fact that opposite party No. 2 was the distributor of gas cylinders and the complainant was the customer of opposite party No. 2 for supply of cooking gas cylinder. Opposite parties further averred that the cooking gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant only in the month of November, 1990 and it was not supplied on 7.3.91 as averred by the complainant.

THE opposite parties further averred that the cooking gas cylinder was supplied on 7.3.91 not to the complainant but to a neighbours of the complainant. THE opposite parties denied that the fire accident was the result of any leakage of the gas from the gas cylinder. THE opposite parties further averred that the fire accident on 7.3.91 in the premises of the complainant was not due to the leakage of the gas from the gas cylinder, as the cylinder, regulator and its rubber tube were found intact. The opposite parties, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry, the complainant examined himself as CW 1 and got Exs. C1 to C9 marked in evidence. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 examined their officials as RW 1 and RW 2 and got Exs. R1 to R7 marked in evidence. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the material on record. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 2 was defective and the accident in question on 7.3.91 was as a result of the supply of the defective gas cylinder by opposite party No. 2? (2) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

REGARDING Point Nos. 1 & 2: It is not disputed that the upstairs premises of the complainant was serviced with gas cylinder by opposite party No- 2 which was filled in and supplied by opposite party No. 1. The complainant, on page No. 2 of his complaint regarding the supply of gas cylinder has averred thus: "The opposite party No. 2 supplied the cooking gas cylinder to the complainant through its delivery boy vide receipt No. 10551 and the same was installed at the premises of the complainant by the delivery boy of opposite party No. 2 and this was either on 7.3.91 or a day earlier as the receipt No. 10551 does not bear the date of supply of the cooking gas cylinder supplied to the complainant."

AS per this averment, it is clear that the cooking gas cylinder was supplied to the premises of the complainant either on 6.3.91 or on 7.3.91. The complainant has stated in his evidence that it was supplied to him on 7.3.91. He has not given the time at which it was supplied to him on 7.3.91. According to him, he used to leave his premises by about 9.00 a.m. every day and get back to his premises by about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. The complainant has not given the time at which on 7.3.91 the gas cylinder was supplied to him and thereafter at what time he left the premises on that day.

As referred above, in the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that the said cooking gas cylinder even might have been supplied to him on 6.3.91.

THE complainant has stated that by about 9.00 p.m. on 7.3.91 he returned to the premises, opened the door, switched on the light and found the flames in the whole of the premises. THE complainant, in his evidence, has in this regard, stated thus: "By about 9 or 9.15 p.m. on 7.3.91, I returned to the premises. I opened the door and entered the premises. On entering the premises I switched on light. THE switch is located just next to the main door. As soon as I switched on light, found flames in the whole of the premises. THE light that was switched on was a tubelight. THE flames that flared up in the premises may be due to the accumulation of the gas in the premises. THE gas might have leaked from the cylinder." The complainant has in his evidence further stated thus: "It is true that the cooking gas has identifiable odor. I did not feel any smell of the gas when I opened the door on the day of the incident." This evidence of the complainant belies the fact that there was any accumulation of gas in the premises and the fire accident was the result of this burning of the gas.

EX. C-4 is the Mahazar drawn by the police on 8.3.91. That would go to show that the gas stove and the cylinder were found intact in the kitchen. The complainant, in his evidence, has in this regard, stated thus: "It is not true to suggest that in a Mahazar conducted by police no gas leak was found either in the gas cylinder or in the tube. I don''t know if the gas cylinder and tube were found intact by police and there was no damage to them. It is not true to suggest that I was carrying some silk process in my room and the accident has occurred due to the spark of the silk material in the room and not due to leakage of gas from the cylinder."

The complainant has not examined any police officer or the Mahazardar of Ex. C4. Opposite party No. 1 has examined RW 1, Customers Service Cell Officer of opposite party No. 1 who had visited the premises on 8.3.91 and had drawn the Mahazar as per Ex. R 1. She has stated with regard to the materials found in the premises thus: "In the whole, some silk material like yarn were charred. In the kitchen, on the platform there was cylinder, regulator, rubber tube and the stove and all the equipments were found to be in good condition."

This fact spoken to by RW 1 found support in the Mahazar, Ex. C4, as referred above and also in the report of RW 1, Ex. R1. The Mahazar, Ex. C4 also would go to show that certain silk material and yam material kept in a portion of the premises was also found intact.

THESE circumstances, in our opinion, do not establish the fact that the fire accident in the premises of the complainant on 7.3.91 was the result of gas leakage from the cooking gas cylinder.

THE complainant has not placed any other material on record to show that the gas cylinder was in any way defective and due to which there was leakage of gas in the gas cylinder. Having regard to this material placed on record by the complainant, it would be very difficult to hold that the gas cylinder supplied by opposite party No. 2 was in any way defective and the services rendered by them suffered from any deficiency.

On consideration of the material placed on record, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to establish the fact that the fire accident in the premises of the complainant on 7.3.91 was due to any defect in the gas cylinder and it was the result of negligence in the services rendered on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

IN view of this fact, it is clear that the complainant has not made out a case for grant of any relief sought for by him and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative and against the complainant. In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.