Registered Consumer Are Entitled To Compensation, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara Holds Dost Gas Agency Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara held Dost Gas Agency liable for deficiency in service for providing a defective gas cylinder to the Complainant which led to a massive fire damaging the Complainant's residential house. The Bench presided by Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) reiterated that the Complainants being registered consumers were entitled to compensation as the fire was caused due to the leakage in the gas cylinder. Background The Complainants, residents of Sarri Zurhama Kupwara obtained a gas connection (Indian Oil) from Dost Gas Agency (Opposite Party). On 13-04-2015, the gas cylinder leaked at 1 pm and caused an explosion causing heavy damage. The Complainants' double-storeyed house along with doors and windows and other household goods was destroyed due to the fire. Moreover, the walnut trees also caught fire and were gutted. The matter was taken to Police and an FIR was lodged on 30-04-2015. In addition to this, the Complainants also obtained the certificate of the Fire and Emergency Services, Command Kupwara. Subsequently, the Complainants approached the Opposite Party and raised a claim. They were given a new gas connection and were promised that the claim would be settled within 15 days, however, the same was not done. Therefore, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara to address grievances. Submissions of the Parties The Complainants produced witnesses who stated that the Complainants had received a gas connection from the Opposite Party 14 years ago and the fire incident that took place on 13-04-2015 at 1 pm was caused due to gas leakage. It was stated by one of the witnesses that the fire gutted the house causing the Complainant a loss of 6 Lacs rupees. Furthermore, the witness stated that the Fire and Emergency Services Command Kupwara despite making full efforts could not save the Complainant's house from fire. He informed the Court that the Complainant sought compensation from the Opposite Party, however no relief were extended to them. The other witnesses also made similar statements. On the other hand, the Opposite Party through objections stated that the contentions raised were baseless and concocted. It was submitted that the Opposite party did not provide any services to the Complainants. Furthermore, it was stated that the Complaint could not sustain as the Complainants had not followed the necessary provisions of law. Asserting that the Complaint was based on false grounds, the Opposite Party contended that the Complainant had not produced the purchase bills of the commodity before the Commission. Seeking dismissal of the Complaint, the Opposite Party argued that even if such an incident had occurred, the consumer's case would be covered under the LPG insurance policy under Public Liability insurance. Since the opposite party failed to appear consecutively, the case was proceeded Ex-Pate Findings of the Commission On perusing the relevant documents and the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainants, the Commission observed that the Complainants had a joint residential house situated at Sarri Zurhama Kupwara and were beneficiaries of LPG. The submissions regarding the facts of the incident were accepted by the Commission and it was held that the Opposite Party had not settled the claim of the Complainants which they had initially promised. The Bench observed that as per rules, the manufacturer and dealer were required to take care and precautions while availing the gas connection to consumers. It was observed that the manufacturer and dealer must have considered the potential for incidents during usage of the gas connection and should have proactively planned for such situations to ensure appropriate measures were taken while providing services to consumers. Therefore, holding the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service, the Commission observed that the dealer was responsible for equipping the Complainant with safe gas connection. The Commission relied on the decisions in D.Shankar versus Gopi Agencies and Ors 2010 (CTJ) 2015 (CP) and Govindroa and Ors versus "Hindustan petroleum OP 343 of 1999", wherein it was held that both the distributors and the manufacturers were liable for compensation of damages caused due to the leakage of gas. Accordingly, the Commission held that the Complainant suffered loss of property due to the defective cylinder and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5 Lacs to the complainant as compensation for damages within a period of 4 weeks along with Rs.30,000 as litigation expenses. Consumer Complainant No: 14/2015 Case Title: Daisy versus The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd Counsel for Complainant: Adv. Jino Jose Kallarackal, M/s.Paulson M.J & Associates, Click Here To Download...

Registered Consumer Are Entitled To Compensation, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara Holds Dost Gas Agency Liable For Deficiency In Service

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags