ATMARAM PATHAK (SHARMA) Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order impugned the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior has dismissed Complaint (No. 519/1999) of the appellant filed against respondent (1) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; (2) local dealer -Ganesh Gas Agency, Morar, Gwalior; and (3) the National Insurance Company Ltd. for compensation.

(2.) APPELLANT -Atmaram Pathak (also using surname as "Sharma") has two L.P. cooking gas connections from respondent No. 1 granted through respondent No. 2 -dealer at Ghasmandi, Morar. Respondent No. 2 -dealer at the relevant time was also covered under a L.P. Gas Traders Combined Policy taken out from respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company. On 17.7.1999 around 7.40 a.m. fire broke out at the house of the complainant due to leakage of L.P. gas on account of reported failure of regulator valve and subsequent ignition of the fire, causing damage to the house and house -hold goods of the complainant. The matter was immediately reported to the police as also to respondent No. 2 who in turn informed respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 The complainant in his report to the police estimated his loss at Rs. 30,000/ - but later on submitted list of damaged items valued at the loss at Rs. 56,000/ -. However, his claim for compensation was repudiated by all the respondents. He thus approached the Forum below attributing deficiency in service to all the respondents and claiming total compensation Rs. 82,900/ -. According to the complainant, the incident occurred on account of defects in the LPG cylinder and the regulator supplied to him by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This amounted to deficiency in service, asserted the complainant.

(3.) COMPLAINT was resisted by all the respondents who filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 -Indian Oil Corporation attributed the fire to the use of sub -standard regulator by the complainant and it was contended that it was not the same regulator which was supplied to the complainant while granting LPG connection to him. Respondent No. 2 -Dealer denied that there was any defect in the regulator or the cylinder supplied to the complainant. The cylinder and the regulator which were damaged in the fire have since been replaced by this dealer. Respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company denied its liability to indemnify the insured i.e., the respondent No. 2 for any such loss as according to it the complainant -customer was not covered under the policy.